Zimbabwe

Lord Howell of Guildford: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What representations they have made to the Zimbabwe regime concerning proposals for the nationalisation of all farming land.

Baroness Amos: My Lords, the Zimbabwean state-run newspaper, the Herald, ran an article on 8 June stating that the government would be nationalising all productive farmland and replacing title deeds with 99-year leases. The Zimbabwean Government have clarified that this policy would apply only to land acquired under the fast-track land programme.
	Until there is more information and clarity from the Government of Zimbabwe regarding how this proposed nationalisation is to be implemented, it is not possible to determine fully the consequences of this new policy.

Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that Answer. It is sadly clear, is it not, that the Government feel more or less impotent in the face of this increasingly ugly regime? Does the noble Baroness agree that the situation clearly demands not nationalisation of land, which will make the food situation still worse in Zimbabwe, but more internationalisation of pressure on the regime to get rid of Mugabe and to improve its ways? Is the noble Baroness aware that Mugabe has now hatched a deal with the American DIMON Corporation to sell tobacco in exchange for maize to cover up his food problems? Can she confirm that we are in close touch with the American authorities about putting an end to this illegal racket, which breaks every sanction?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I could not agree more in regard to the importance of internationalising this issue. That is precisely why we have worked through the European Union, through our partners in Africa—particular through those in the SADC region and the AU—through the UN and more generally. We are seeking to ensure, through the Commonwealth and other avenues, that pressure is put on the Zimbabwe regime.
	I am aware of the rumours with respect to Zimbabwe selling tobacco in exchange for maize. We are in regular touch with our partners in the United States on this issue and will continue to be so.

Lord Avebury: My Lords, is not the real problem that much of the land which has been seized from commercial farmers is not being cultivated and has reverted to bush? Have there been discussions with SADC about Mugabe's refusal to collaborate with the WFP and the FAO in assessing the crop production and the likely food needs—particularly in the light of the snub to the UN Secretary-General's special envoy, who was in the region assessing the humanitarian needs, and the report by ZimVAC, an agency which includes representatives of the Zimbabwean Government, which found that 2.3 million people are estimated to be in need of extra maize in the 2004–05 season?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, the noble, Lord Avebury, is right. James Morris, who runs the World Food Programme, was in the region and visited every country. However, he did not go to Zimbabwe because he was told that no Minister—nor the President—would be available to meet him. We are dealing here with a government who are prepared to starve their own people as a political tool. I very much hope that SADC leaders and others in the region will bring continuing pressure to bear on a situation that is rapidly becoming a nightmare.

Lord Acton: My Lords, has South Africa shown its hand recently on these matters, particularly in relation to land nationalisation and the matter raised by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, about the UN being unable to assess the amount of food required for the next season?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, South Africa has carried out an enormous amount of work behind the scenes. In particular it has tried to foster dialogue between the opposition MDC and the Government of Zimbabwe. As to the question of land, following the report in the Herald, South Africa's Deputy Foreign Minister made some comments, which were reported. But my noble friend needs to remember that we have been trying to get the Government of Zimbabwe to see sense on the issue of land reform. We are not against land reform, but we want to see a sustainable process which ensures that the population of Zimbabwe can continue to be fed.

Lord Elton: My Lords, has the noble Baroness heard on the BBC the series of reports from inside Zimbabwe? Is it not the case that this goes far beyond the question of land and into the problems of AIDS, the torture of sitting MPs and the abuse of their families?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I have heard the reports. I heard the one this morning which focused on HIV/AIDS. The noble Lord, Lord Elton, is right: there is not only an issue in relation to land but also in relation to the economic collapse of the Zimbabwean economy and the impact that HIV/AIDS is having in the country, which has one of the highest levels of HIV infection in the world. There is continuing violence, not only against the opposition MDC but against others, who are afraid to speak out because they fear a violent response.

Lord Blaker: My Lords, the noble Baroness referred to the SADC countries bringing continued pressure to bear. Are they bringing any pressure to bear and, if so, what is it?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, SADC has made repeated attempts, not just with Mr Mugabe but with other members of his government, to bring to their attention the impact that the ruinous policies are having on Zimbabwe and the region as a whole. There is an outflow of people from Zimbabwe to neighbouring countries, and this pressure has been going on for some time. The noble Lord may recall that when President Mulusi, for example, chaired SADC, he made a number of visits to Zimbabwe precisely to bring these issues to the attention of the government there.

Viscount Simon: My Lords, as an addition to the previous question, do the Zimbabwean Government take any notice whatever of pressure or of discussions that they might have with any other governments?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, there is absolutely no evidence that the Government of Zimbabwe take any notice of pressure put by anyone at all.

Iraq: National Security Council

Lord Hurd of Westwell: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What arrangements they have made for British representation on the National Security Council in Iraq as provided for in the letters annexed to the United Nations Security Council resolution of 8 June.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, before I answer the Question, I express sympathy and condolence for those who lost loved ones or who were injured in the attacks in Baquba, Ramadi and Mosul this morning.
	In his letter of 5 June to the president of the United Nations Security Council, the Iraqi Prime Minister designate, Dr Allawi, outlined how a consultation with the multinational force will work after 30 June. One means will be through the Ministerial Committee for National Security—the MCNS—composed of key Iraqi Ministers, which will set the broad framework for Iraqi security policy. The MNF commander and his deputy will be invited as required by the Iraqi Prime Minister. Currently, a British lieutenant-general, John McColl, is the deputy MNF commander in Iraq.

Lord Hurd of Westwell: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that Answer. I am sure the whole House will join her in the sympathy she has expressed for the victims of the latest upsurge of violence in Iraq.
	A new chapter starts next week. As I understand it—and I think the noble Baroness has just confirmed it—the Security Council is the body in Baghdad which will tackle major military questions. The answer to these questions is crucial for British troops, whether or not they are actively involved, as we have seen in the handling of Fallujah and Najaf. Therefore, is it not reasonable to hope that, as the letter she quoted allows, Britain should have, in this new chapter, in one way or another, an influence on these matters which is in proportion to the effort we are making?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, of course I agree that a new chapter starts on 30 June. It is quite right that, given the contribution we have made, we should have the consultation outlined in Dr Allawi's letter to the United Nations Security Council president and in the reciprocal letter written on behalf of the MNF by Colin Powell.
	The noble Lord is quite right—the MCNS will be the main forum for deciding defence policy. As well as the Prime Minister, the body will include the Deputy Prime Minister, the Ministers for defence, the interior, justice, foreign affairs and finance. The MNF commander, his deputy and others are expected to be invited to serve on it. The noble Lord will also wish to know that there will be consultation at all levels in Iraq, from the region to the province.

Lord Avebury: My Lords, the Minister has given us some information about the composition of the MCNS, particularly the identity of the Ministers who will be serving as members. She also said that the multinational force commander and his deputy would serve on it. Will those individuals be there in a purely advisory capacity? If there is a difference of opinion on matters of security between the members of the committee who are appointed by the Prime Minister and those appointed by the MNF, how are those matters to be resolved, particularly with regard to the sensitive defensive operations referred to in the resolution?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, let us be clear about this. The letters that were exchanged were put out by the Security Council's annexes to UNSCR 1546. They make it clear that the Iraqi Government are responsible for setting the broad framework of Iraqi security policy and that they will consult with the MNF on security policy and sensitive operational issues. The commanders will under no circumstances have direct control of the multinational forces. The whole point is that there should be proper consultation throughout the system and that there should be flexibility in that system—the very flexibility that the noble Lord, Lord Howell, thought was so sensible when we last discussed this on 7 June.

Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, is not the problem with this letter the fact that it excludes any consideration whatever by the people who will be on the new authority at the end of this month? Would it not have been far better if that letter had been drawn up after the authority had been created?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: No, my Lords, I do not think that it would have been. I think that it is far better to have clarity before the handover of power. Your Lordships have, quite rightly and properly, been asking about the relationship between the sovereign government of Iraq and the multinational forces. The exchange of letters which has been endorsed by the Security Council gives us exactly that framework within which to work.
	I also draw to your Lordships' attention the very powerful statement on Iraqi defence which was issued on 20 June by Dr Allawi, in which he goes into more detail about how security arrangements will work. I shall ensure that a copy of the statement goes into the Library of your Lordships' House.

Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, does the Minister accept that some of use are getting a little uneasy about the way in which American reported pronouncements are already placing restrictions on the new Iraqi Government designate in a way that may undermine the important authority of Mr Allawi and his colleagues? How does she feel about the announcement that the immunity question will be decided by the Americans, that the public safety aspirations of Mr Allawi have been denied him, and that all ports and airports—there may be a reason for this—are to be under Allied/coalition or MNF control rather than Iraqi control? Does she not agree that it is important to get on quickly with having a British voice at the centre of these evolving security arrangements so that we can get some balance and not see the new Iraqi Government weakened before they have even started?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I counsel the noble Lord against reacting to every single reported statement of an American point of view. We are in daily contact with the Americans about all these issues and have a strong relationship with the State Department. However, your Lordships will be aware that there are many arms to the American administration. Perhaps the noble Lord is reflecting some of the other points of view emerging in the United States. I assure him that the British Government have a clear voice on these issues.
	We discussed the question of immunity and the continuation of or adjustments to CPA Order 17 only yesterday. I was able to tell your Lordships that so far the Iraqis have not raised any fundamental problems over the immunities question. I suggest that when we can see the full picture of everything that has been agreed on 30 June we will be able to take up any points of detail on the basis of facts rather than speculation.

Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde: My Lords, does the Minister agree that Lieutenant-General McColl, although a soldier, is certainly well placed and experienced to carry out this function, having done such a marvellous job in Afghanistan in bringing together the security services and the civilian population? Does she agree that the appointment is a particularly good one?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: Yes my Lords, I agree with my noble friend Lady Dean emphatically. Lieutenant-General McColl took up his post in April this year. I hope that he will complete his tour of duty, which will end towards the end of this year. As my noble friend said, he is very experienced and is an exemplar of the way in which the British Army have conducted themselves in Iraq. That is why they have won so many friends among the population of Iraq.

Smoking in Workplaces

Lord Janner of Braunstone: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they will take steps to ban smoking in all workplaces.

Lord Warner: My Lords, our wide-ranging consultation on public health includes questions about what action should be taken to tackle second-hand smoke. One of the options discussed is whether legislation should be introduced to ban smoking in workplaces and in enclosed public places. The consultation period has been extended until 28 June and responses to this consultation will inform a White Paper later in the year.

Lord Janner of Braunstone: My Lords, does my noble friend not agree that this is now a matter of urgency? Thousands of people in the United Kingdom die from active smoking and hundreds die from passive smoking each year. The period of consultation has been extended. When can we have action? If there is not to be action to prevent people exercising a choice and going into pubs, restaurants or cafes where there is smoking, surely immediate steps should be taken to prevent people being forced to go into those places. In their workplaces, people have no such alternative. So how long must we wait for action?

Lord Warner: My Lords, in 2002 an ONS Omnibus survey showed that smoking is either banned throughout, or limited to smoking rooms or areas, in 86 per cent of workplaces, so a great deal of progress has been made on the workplace protection of people from second-hand smoke. I suggest that we need a mature debate about how to tackle the key health challenges and how to support people to become, as Derek Wanless says, fully engaged in their own health. We are taking these matters forward on a basis of partnership and consultation and will be publishing a White Paper later this year.

Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, is the Minister aware that, according to recent polls, public opinion opposes smoking bans in hospitality venues and supports choice with facilities provided for non-smokers and smokers alike? Is the Minister also aware that I share the views held by national government that individual choice on whether smoking should be banned in public places is preferable to legislation?

Lord Warner: My Lords, I am always pleased to have a variety of views expressed to me on this subject from all sides of the House—a warm range of views is coming from behind me in particular. We have committed ourselves to the path of consultation with the public and I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her support. We know that the public has conflicting views on the extent to which there should be restrictions on smoking in pubs and restaurants. That is why we are going carefully through a proper process of consultation.

Lord Addington: My Lords, is there any truth in the matter that if a new drug were introduced as damaging to people as second-hand smoke it would be banned? Under those circumstances, should not the Government take vigorous action to create more smoke-free environments?

Lord Warner: My Lords, we are well aware that second-hand smoking is dangerous. We understand that. We have instigated research in this area and are continuing to get work done. At the risk of becoming even more boring than normal, as I said, we are going through a process of public consultation. We will continue that process and produce a White Paper in the autumn.

Lord Dubs: My Lords, my noble friend is never boring. When he assesses the results of the consultation, will he take into account the experiences of the Republic of Ireland? It appears from surveys there that both a majority of non-smokers and a majority of smokers welcome the ban. If smokers and non-smokers are united on an issue, surely the way forward is clear?

Lord Warner: My Lords, I am glad to have been able to provide my noble friend with entertainment. He is of course right. Ireland's experience has been encouraging. We know that there has been good compliance with the provision on smoke-free workplaces. The Government will take account of that experience in considering their position in this area.

Lord Boston of Faversham: My Lords, does the Minister recall that the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, recently informed your Lordships that, ever since she had given up smoking, passive smoking had become one of her few remaining pleasures? Would the Minister do whatever he can to ensure that the noble Baroness never becomes a passive Member of your Lordships' House, because she gives us such joy and entertainment?

Lord Warner: My Lords, I am sure that any therapy that would stop the noble Baroness being a major contributor to your Lordships' debates would prove to be both unfundable and unfindable. We are always glad to have her contributions.

Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that some of the so-called research that demonstrates attitudes towards smoking in public places and in the hospitality industry needs to be taken with a substantial pinch of salt? A lot of that research is commissioned and paid for by the tobacco industry. Is it not the case that most responsible members of the hospitality industry are looking to the Government for a lead and would welcome a nationwide ban, provided that it applied everywhere?

Lord Warner: My Lords, we are aware that there are differences of view within the hospitality industry, just as there are among the public. That is why we are going through a process of consultation. We will take all these views into account and come forward with a White Paper in the autumn.

Lord Renton: My Lords, although I always hesitate to disagree with my noble friend Lady Trumpington, would it help the Government to know that I was a regular smoker from the age of 19 to the age of 66 when I gave it up, and that that has enabled me to live nearly 30 years longer?

Lord Warner: My Lords, the noble Lord is echoing the views expressed by Sir Richard Doll, who himself was a smoker for 19 years and who, at the age of 91, is now producing his 50-year study. He has shown conclusively that it is never too late to give up.

Lord Harris of High Cross: My Lords, would the Minister acknowledge—

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am sorry, but we must move on to the next Question.

Northern Ireland: European Parliament Election Riots

Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they intend to close those voting centres in Northern Ireland where rioting occurred during the recent European Parliament election; and what assessment they have made of the impact of this development on the electoral process in Northern Ireland.

Baroness Amos: My Lords, the rioting that took place in Londonderry in the evening of 10 June is a serious matter, and the Government condemn those who tried to undermine and disrupt the democratic process. The location of polling places is an operational matter for the Chief Electoral Officer. I understand that a decision has yet to be taken as to whether the polling places attacked will be used at future elections.

Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: My Lords, I am a little disappointed by the ambivalence of that Answer. I was hoping that the Minister would now confirm unequivocally that she disagrees with the Northern Ireland Chief Electoral Officer when he says that he may be obliged to close polling centres where rioting occurs. He said that,
	"people who would have gone to them will just have to walk a few extra miles to go somewhere else".
	What way is that to treat the electorate?
	The Northern Ireland people sustained the democratic process throughout the toughest years of violence, and many of us see that attitude as unworthy of someone in the Chief Electoral Officer's position.

Baroness Amos: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, may not be aware that the Chief Electoral Officer will receive a report from the Senior Presiding Officer shortly. It would be totally remiss of me or the Government to comment in advance of that report being received. In addition, the Electoral Office for Northern Ireland devised a new polling station scheme in 2003. That resulted in the number of polling stations increasing to 1,532 and the number of polling places increasing to 612.

Lord Kilclooney: My Lords, that report refers to specific polling stations, but a general principle applies here. Will a handful of rioting republicans be able to close down polling stations? That would be a denial of democratic rights for the overwhelming majority of people who wish to vote in those polling stations. Is not the responsibility with the Government to ensure that there is proper policing and security at every polling station?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I remind the noble Lord that no decision has yet been taken. We must wait for the report. Of course, there is a responsibility to balance the democratic right of our citizens as against the safety and security of those who work in our polling places. We need to ensure that we get that balance right. I underline the fact that no decision has been taken.

Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the noble Baroness the Lord Privy Seal is absolutely right to condemn the rioting in that or any other place. After the fiasco earlier this month, I hope that there are no suggestions that we extend postal voting to Northern Ireland. If the situation is such, as it clearly was, that the police were unable to keep control, is that not a very good reason for the Government to change their mind and keep the police reserve in Northern Ireland?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, there is no evidence whatever that the police were unable to keep control. The rioting did not occur during polling hours; no one lost his opportunity to vote; and elsewhere in Northern Ireland the election passed off peacefully, with no reported incidents at any other polling place. The priorities of the Chief Electoral Officer and the Chief Constable lie with enabling the people of Northern Ireland to exercise their democratic right to vote. However, I remind noble Lords that they must ensure, too, the safety and security of all electoral staff.

Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, I appreciate what the noble Baroness the Lord Privy Seal said about balancing the different problems. While the Government are considering what to do when they get the report, would she not agree that it is of supreme importance to maintain the integrity of polling stations, and that we should consider shutting them down only in the most extreme circumstances?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, of course I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, with respect to the point about the integrity of polling stations. That is not an issue for us—we wholeheartedly condemn the violence. But I have to remind noble Lords that the location of polling places is an operational matter for the Chief Electoral Officer, and he will be considering that issue in the context of the report that he receives. I underline the fact that our concern with regard to protecting the democratic right of our citizens is paramount.

Civil Partnership Bill [HL]

Report received.
	Clause 1 [Civil partnership]:

Lord Goodhart: moved Amendment No. 1:
	Page 1, line 4, after second "a" insert "mutually committed"

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 1, I shall speak to Amendment No. 9, which is also tabled in the names of my noble friend Lord Lester and myself.
	The position has been somewhat changed by the publication of government Amendments Nos. 18 and 21, which may provide a solution to the problem that we envisaged. However, I still wish to move Amendment No. 1 for the purpose of explaining what we are concerned about.
	Civil marriage has been defined in the common law since 1866 as,
	"the union of one man with one woman voluntarily entered into . . . to the exclusion of all others".
	The present Bill contains no similar definition of what constitutes a relationship that is registerable as a civil partnership. This absence has led, in Committee and again in amendments tabled for the present stage, to suggestions that access to civil partnership should be widened beyond exclusively committed same-sex couples to a wider group of home sharers and close relatives. These amendments make it clear that a civil partnership involves a commitment akin to that entered into by marrying heterosexual couples, and is therefore not appropriate to be extended to the relationship of home sharers or close relatives, who—under the amendments tabled at this stage—are of different sexes.
	At Grand Committee on 12 May, my noble friend Lord Lester stated our support for the principle behind the amendment on that occasion tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, and the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, which would have inserted a solemn declaration of mutual commitment between the civil partners. We supported that amendment as it reflected the position in civil marriages and emphasised the solemnity and longevity of the commitment being entered into.
	In the Bill, Clause 8(4)(a) states that the partners must make a written declaration that each,
	"proposed civil partner believes that there is no impediment of kindred or affinity or other lawful hindrance to the formation of the civil partnership".
	That parallels the relevant provision in the first half of the Marriage Act 1949, which states that each of the partners must make an oral declaration that,
	"I do solemnly declare that I know not of any lawful impediment why I may not be joined in matrimony".
	The only difference between the two provisions is that under the present Bill the declaration has to be in writing, whereas under the Marriage Act 1949 an oral declaration is required.
	The problematic area for this Bill is that it does not have the second half of the Marriage Act provision, which contains the contracting words. That is where each partner says,
	"I call upon these persons here present to witness that I take thee to be my lawful wedded wife",
	or husband. The noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, and the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, tried to remedy this by tabling an amendment that each of the proposed civil partners should state that the civil partnership is for life. We agree that that is the correct principle. But, in fact, there are no words in the Marriage Act that state that the commitment is for life. We have therefore tabled an amendment with words that more closely reflect the contracting words used in the Marriage Act. I beg to move.

Lord Alli: My Lords, I do not question the motivation of the noble Lords, Lord Goodhart and Lord Lester of Herne Hill, in tabling this amendment. They have always had equality at the heart of all they have done. However, I have some concerns with Amendment No. 1, which may in practice have unintended consequences that would not be at all helpful. I have said throughout our debates that civil partnership should contain those rights and responsibilities that heterosexual couples can acquire through civil marriage. I am concerned that adding the concept of relationships being "mutually committed" creates an additional hurdle that heterosexuals do not have to clear. That is not fair. I thought that essentially we wanted parity with civil marriage but this amendment would introduce a new and additional test that clearly moves away from the position of equality.
	My concern, in particular, is that the new provision could be called into play at a time when people are most vulnerable. For example, one could envisage a situation where a recently deceased person's will could be contested by an aggravated family member on the basis that the partnership had not been "mutually committed". That would be a mischief that could not arise in the case of a married heterosexual couple. I do not believe that the noble Lord would want that to happen. I do not.
	I have no objection to the words being added by Amendment No. 9. Indeed, I think it is helpful, giving couples greater clarity about what they are committing themselves to. My question is whether it is required on the face of the Bill. I wonder whether this could be done through guidance. I understood from the Minister in Grand Committee that wording very similar to this would probably be adopted for the oral consent required. Will she clarify the position? If that will be the case, I think it should satisfy both the noble Lord and me on this point.

Lord St John of Fawsley: My Lords, I feel that one should not criticise anything that is done in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lester, in view of his very important pioneering work in this field but I have two comments to make. One is on the substance of the amendment and the other is on what the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, has said.
	First, in effect, the words "mutually committed" add nothing at all to the Bill. If people have applied for this relationship or contract, or whatever it is, it must surely be presumed that they are mutually committed. If they are mutually committed, to what are they mutually committed? What does "mutually" mean? This is simply adding confusing words to what is already a fairly confused situation.
	I welcome the fact that "relationship" is not defined in the Bill. If a relationship were to be defined, which is what lies behind this amendment, one would be in very deep waters indeed. There is no reference to homosexuality in the definition in the Bill, and a very good thing too. People have a rather limited idea of any relationship where sex is involved. After all, there are relationships that can be loving, committed and celibate. If one attempts to define the nature of "relationship" by words of one kind or another, one will merely create a harvest of difficulties for the future.
	With respect to the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, my second point is that I do not think that it is helpful constantly to draw parallels between the facilities provided by the Bill and traditional Christian marriage, as some people do. The words that are quoted from the Prayer-Book are applicable only to a sacramental marriage. A sacramental marriage cannot be contracted by those who are of the same sex. Much of the opposition to the Bill comes from those who feel that it is an attack on Christian marriage or, indeed, on civil marriage, which has its roots in a Christian tradition. I therefore think that these references to the Prayer-Book and the attempt to find similar words are not helpful.

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, does he accept that the wording to which I referred was not from the Prayer-Book but from the Marriage Act? It applies to civil marriages. Of course, if one goes back far enough in history, the concept of civil marriages may derive from Christian marriage, but it is quite clear that for many decades past, if not centuries, it has applied to marriages between non-Christians as well as between Christians.

Lord St John of Fawsley: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that intervention. As one would expect, he has put the point that I was making much more clearly, definitively, authoritatively and legally than I could. I am extremely grateful to him for explaining his remarks and for doing so in such a helpful and enlightening manner.

Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I certainly support the principle behind this amendment to draw attention to the importance of commitment. It is clear from experience and all modern research that a stable committed family relationship is important for the upbringing of children. We are looking at a situation where same-sex couples are increasingly going to adopt children and perhaps have children by other means, as technology advances. I have been extremely concerned about the Bill. Unstable, uncommitted civil partnerships might enable same-sex couples to adopt children and leave them in a position of insecurity. I believe that the word "commitment" should be crafted into the Bill in some way.

The Lord Bishop of Worcester: My Lords, I support what the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, is seeking to do, even if the Minister says in her clarification that guidance will be introduced to include the words of commitment that the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, is seeking and the word "committed" itself on the face of Bill. It has always seemed to me that the Bill has two functions and that that lies behind the passions that the debate arouses. One function is to rectify some civil disabilities that same-sex couples experience. The second is to recognise the moral seriousness of what the couples are undertaking, and have undertaken for many years and generations, in a culture where that is particularly important since commitment over a long period is extremely difficult to achieve in any area of life. It will not really do to say that all we are trying to do in the Bill is to rectify civil disabilities. If we simply confine ourselves to that, then I think that we shall not meet the needs of many of those whom the Bill is designed to assist.
	I therefore think it preferable that the word "commitment" and some words of commitment be on the face of the Bill, because that is one of the things which people are looking to Parliament to provide for them. I think that it is a proper thing to look to a Parliament to do. I say that, of course, without derogating from the seriousness of the debate that goes on particularly in religious communities, and particularly in my own Church, about whether it is proper for people to enter into such commitments. The fact of the matter is that, in terms of the life of our community, many people do. I think that the amendments which the noble Lord is proposing do in fact confer an element of recognition that this Parliament should not withhold.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I join the noble Lord, Lord St John of Fawsley, and my noble friend Lord Alli in saying that the Government clearly do not intend to question the intent behind Amendment No. 1. We have always made it clear that the need for the Bill arises from the fact that same-sex couples in supportive relationships cannot marry but deserve the opportunity of legal recognition. The rights and responsibilities that will accompany the relationship are clear evidence of that. I am pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, recognises that.
	The inclusion of the words "mutually committed" in Clause 1 would, however, present problems in their practical implications for the Bill, as has already been outlined in this debate. We understand why the right reverend Prelate and the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, would seek to highlight the point. However, all same-sex couples will make their own decision about how they choose to live out their obligations to one another. If we included the words "mutually committed" in Clause 1, there would be a real question as to how it would be possible to set a common standard to define what the phrase means.
	Perhaps I may give a couple of examples. First, although the Bill sets out eligibility provisions, that the parties are "mutually committed" is not one of them. However, the fact that they agree to support each other and to take on the many obligations in respect of each other that attach to their new status of civil partner speaks for itself and is evidence of the level of commitment that they are both agreeing to take on.
	Secondly, the Bill already makes provision for the dissolution of a civil partnership on the evidence of unreasonable behaviour. The notion of being mutually committed is not used here and we would not wish it to be imposed as a test of any kind. Just as heterosexual couples choose to share their lives together and meet their responsibilities towards each other, civil partners will be expected to meet their rights and responsibilities. How they choose to do so really should be a matter for them.
	I turn to Amendment No. 9. We have had a very useful and constructive debate on this issue on Second Reading, in Grand Committee and now at Report stage. It is clear that noble Lords are concerned that those who form a civil partnership should make a spoken statement to each other, or exchange words, during steps taken to form a civil partnership. Perhaps I may therefore explain why the Government have not included any spoken words in the registration procedure.
	First and most importantly, in civil marriage, the point at which the marriage is formed is when the spoken vows are exchanged in the course of the marriage ceremony. Registration records the formation of the relationship which has already occurred. The structure of the Bill is somewhat different as it establishes a quite different procedure for the formation of civil partnership, and spoken words are not part of that registration process.
	For civil partnership, by contrast, it is the signing of the civil partnership document in an administrative procedure that marks the moment of the formation of the partnership and the change of status. We believe that that is simple, clear and all that is necessary. To add into that procedure a requirement for these spoken words would alter the emphasis of the procedure. In our view that is unnecessary and could introduce confusion about what was the vital step in the formation of the civil partnership.
	Secondly, civil partners will have the option of exchanging spoken words with each other. Local authorities are able to offer the option of a ceremony which would very likely include spoken words, and couples will also be free to organise any religious blessing with any vows or other statements that they might wish to make to each other.
	We have, however, listened very carefully to what noble Lords have said. While we still believe that it would be problematic to prescribe spoken words, we have tabled amendments to Clauses 14 and 25. Clause 14(2) provides that a,
	"civil partnership schedule must contain such information as may be prescribed by regulations".
	Clause 25(4)(b) provides that the Registrar General's licence,
	"must contain such other information",
	in addition to that prescribed in Clause 25(4)(a),
	"as may be prescribed by regulations".
	The purpose of the amendments is to widen the scope of Clause 14(2) and Clause 25 so that regulations may make provision as to the content of a civil partnership document rather than just the information in it. That will allow for the inclusion in the civil partnership document of a form of words.
	The Government will consider what is the most appropriate form of words to be printed on the civil partnership document as part of the implementation work to be taken forward after Royal Assent. I hope that that will satisfy the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, and give voice to the comments made by my noble friend Lord Alli. I am hopeful that the amendments will meet the noble Lords' concerns. These proposals would not upset the structure of the registration procedures, as it would remain clear that the signing of the civil partnership document was the legally significant event.
	I therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment, confident in the knowledge that this issue has been properly taken on board and will be satisfactorily dealt with.

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I am grateful for the support that our amendments have received from the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Worcester. I also understand the concerns, particularly about Amendment No. 1, that have been expressed by the noble Lords, Lord Alli and Lord St John of Fawsley. The Government's proposals in their Amendments Nos. 18 and 21 potentially go a long way towards meeting the problems that led us to table our two amendments in this group. In the circumstances, we will of course support government Amendments Nos. 18 and 21. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Higgins: moved Amendment No. 2:
	Page 1, line 4, leave out "relationship" and insert "contract"

Lord Higgins: My Lords, this amendment arises from debates that we had in Committee where we sought to argue that the wording of the Bill as it stands is not satisfactory as regards same-sex couples entering into a partnership. I listened with great interest to the remarks made a moment ago by the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland. It seems to me that they were wholly inconsistent with her rejection of the arguments put forward in favour of this amendment in Committee. We argue that a civil partnership is a contract not a relationship. That issue gave rise on the one hand to highly emotional statements by the noble Lord, Lord Alli, and others and, on the other hand, to comments by others who considered that legislation was a matter of logic rather than emotion.
	I believe that we were all influenced by the speech of my noble friend Lord Elton at Second Reading. He spoke of the importance of loving relationships. However, I fear that we cannot legislate for love. We need to set down very precisely that a civil partnership is a contract. Everything that the noble Baroness said about registration a moment ago seemed to imply the registration of a contract, not the registration of a relationship. Indeed, it is quite possible for there to be a relationship between same-sex couples which is neither a civil partnership nor a contract. Yet the Bill seems to assume that all civil partnerships constitute relationships. Of course, in one sense that is true, but there are also relationships that are not civil partnerships. That is why it seems to us more appropriate to insert the word "contract" than "relationship".
	I shall not delay your Lordships much longer. However, in the course of our discussions in Committee the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, who I see is not present, raised several issues in the context of this amendment with regard to the legal situation in a number of cases in Canada. I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, replied to the noble Lord, Lord Lester, in a response covering several pages. I do not think that either the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, or your Lordships would wish her to repeat several pages of commentary on the Canadian cases.
	At the end of the day, this is quite a simple point. However, it is more than a drafting point. It is a matter about which we need to be clear and it is something that we ought to amend. I hope that on reflection the Government, particularly in the light of the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, a moment ago, will be prepared to accept the amendment. I beg to move.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I always feel a certain sadness at disappointing the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, but I shall disappoint him on this occasion.
	As the noble Lord indicated, we had a very useful discussion in Grand Committee on Amendment No. 2. I listened very closely to what was said then and to what has now been said by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins. First, I shall clarify what we mean when we use the word "relationship" and why we resist the word "contract".
	When two people register as civil partners of each other, they form a civil partnership that is a new legal relationship established by this Bill to give the civil partners legal recognition of their life together as a couple. It is the civil partnership that is a new legal relationship between the people. I respectfully suggest that the noble Lord should not confuse the new relationship of civil partnership with any pre-existing personal relationship between a couple, although a loving and committed personal relationship would be the very reason that a couple might decide to form a civil partnership in the first place. The new legal relationship of civil partnership begins only when two people register as civil partners of each other.
	The noble Lord wishes to describe civil partnership as a contract. However, civil partnership is not governed by the law of contract and there is no room for individual variation of the statutory rules governing eligibility, or governing formation or dissolution of a civil partnership, nor of those setting out its consequences.
	The change of status from single person to civil partner affects a couple's relationship with each other. After the formation of their civil partnership they would have an entirely new legal relationship with each other. Forming a civil partnership also affects their status; in other words, their position as an individual in relation to everyone else. Each would now be a civil partner. This change of status is permanent in that on the ending of a civil partnership, civil partners do not revert to being single people. They will be marked by having been in a civil partnership in that they will be former civil partners or a surviving civil partner. Civil partnership is a new statutory relationship that provides same-sex couples with legal recognition of their life together as a couple.
	It is very important for us to understand that what same-sex couples seek is an acknowledgement that their relationship is real, has legal significance and carries rights and responsibilities. It is not a commercial contract; it is something very different. With that explanation, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment. Nothing that I have just said contradicts what I said in support of the earlier amendment.

Lord Higgins: My Lords, your Lordships will reach their own conclusions. We have much expertise in this House but, so far as I know, we do not have a professor of logic, which is what we need in the context of what the noble Baroness has just said.
	The noble Baroness mentioned legal recognition. However, the word "relationship" does not give that legal recognition—it is the registration that clearly forms a contract. The noble Baroness said that same-sex couples want legal confirmation of their new status. That is surely best put forward as a contract. They may have had a relationship for many years prior to this legislation, but it is not the same thing as confirming that in a legal and registratable form.
	The noble Baroness said that she is always sad to turn down an amendment that I propose. That is entirely reciprocated; I am always sad when she is sad that she has turned down an amendment of mine. I shall withdraw the amendment but I am not at all sure that we should not sort this out and return to it at Third Reading. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness O'Cathain: moved Amendment No. 3:
	Page 1, line 4, after "relationship" insert "between two people in the categories set out in section (Categories of civil partners other than same sex couples) or"

Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 3, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 8, 10, 12, 22, 23, 40, 43, 66, 68, 69 and 70 which stand in my name and those of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Winchester and the noble Lords, Lord Weatherill and Lord Maginnis.
	I have received many letters from members of the public who share my concern, and, indeed, a great many letters and messages from noble Lords from all parts of the House who support what I seek to achieve.
	This group of amendments would extend the benefits of the Bill to family members who have lived together on a long-term basis. Under my amendments, two sisters or any two close relations who have lived together for 12 years would be able to register a partnership and take advantage of the provisions of the Bill. These are benefits which are currently unique to married couples and under the Government's Bill will be extended only to one other group; namely, those in same-sex relationships.
	If a daughter gives up her job to look after her elderly mother for 20 years, should she be denied the same rights, including the financial benefits, which the Bill gives to same-sex couples? If a niece goes to live with her disabled aunt and looks after her for 15 years, is her love and commitment for her close relation considered to be less important than that of a same-sex couple? The niece has to pay inheritance tax if she inherits her aunt's estate, but the survivor of a same-sex couple in a registered partnership would not. Is this situation fair and just? I think not.
	In order to meet the demands of same-sex couples who want to be treated in exactly the same way as married couples, the Government are proposing inheritance tax exemption, pension rights, next of kin rights and the right to take key medical decisions for a partner. Those are all rights enjoyed by married couples. If they are to be extended, why should they not be extended to others in long-term caring and stable relationships?
	All those rights could have been dealt with on an issue-by-issue basis rather than wrapped up in the Bill, which has proved a complete nightmare for the Government in terms of complexity. Even now, five government departments are dealing with it. There were 120 pages of government amendments added after the Bill had its first day in Grand Committee, and two days ago we had a further 150 government amendments. I have been a Member of this House for 13 years, and have never witnessed such a convoluted mess. Frankly, it makes nonsense of attempts to perform our scrutiny role. Is that really an efficient legislative process?
	My contention is that the Bill will give rise to greater injustice than it claims to address. If it remains as it is, it will without doubt make the situation even more unjust. I emphasise the point about justice, as we are told that the Bill is not a gay marriage Bill but one about removing injustice. The Government insist that a civil partnership is not gay marriage. The name is clearly different, but anyone with any nous can see that the legal rights are the same. If the amendments are accepted, the House will be making it much clearer that the Bill is not a gay marriage Bill. If civil partnership were to become an arrangement open to close relations, the Government could have greater confidence in their assertion that the Bill was not a gay marriage Bill but only one to remove injustice.
	Leaving aside all the arguments about gay marriage, I recognise that many support the Bill because they are concerned that the law deals too harshly with people in a long-term same-sex relationship. I understand that position clearly, but such problems are not unique to same-sex couples. They are commonplace in family relationships, too, yet such people are excluded from the legislation.
	The Government have raised two principal arguments in favour of the Bill. The first is that it is a means of giving legal recognition to same-sex couples, and the second that it is necessary to address cases of hardship. Recognition and the issue of hardship cannot be separated. Legal recognition under the Bill means essentially the same legal rights and privileges that married couples hold. Civil partnerships give to same-sex couples the legal means to address the issues of hardship, which have been well rehearsed before the House. However, under the Bill, family members will be denied access to civil partnership. It follows that they will be denied the very remedies in cases of hardship that would have been available had they been a same-sex couple.
	I contend that the Bill as drafted will lead to great injustice and discrimination against the family. I draw the attention of the House to the fact that, on 17 January 2001, the noble and learned Lord the then Lord Chancellor told the House that,
	"support for families is at the core of this Government's policies".—[Official Report, 17/1/01; col. 1160.]
	Let them prove that they believe it; that is all I ask.
	The Bill sends out the message that long-term caring family relationships do not matter as much as same-sex relationships, irrespective of their duration. Ministers have argued that same-sex couples in long-term relationships—loving, committed, celibate and so on, as my noble friend Lord St John of Fawsley said—were discriminated against in law and suffered serious hardship. However, the cases of hardship of which we have heard in this House and in Grand Committee applying to same-sex couples also apply for the most part to family members who live together. Their position in terms of inheritance tax, joint assessment for income-related benefit and tenancy succession rights is essentially the same as for single-sex couples. The Bill provides legal remedy for same-sex couples, but not family members.
	A son caring for his widowed father who has Alzheimer's disease has to pay tax on his inheritance, despite the fact that he has given up his job to care for his father and could well be regarded as unemployable as a result. That could mean being forced to sell the family house to pay the tax. Most of us will know of family members who share a house on a long-term basis—sons or daughters who live with their elderly parents, providing care and companionship; sisters who move in together after they are widowed and live out their old age together; nieces and nephews who give up well paid jobs to move in with aunts or uncles, to nurse them in long-term illnesses; and so on.
	The Government say that the Bill is not the place to deal with relationships other than same-sex ones. Where then is the place for dealing with them? What prospect is there that the Government will introduce a Bill specifically to deal with the needs of two family members to live together? We have been given slight and vague promises, but we need more categorical statements about if, when and where. I suggest frankly that there is no realistic prospect of such a Bill. If we want to protect such people, we must amend this Bill today.
	The amendment to Clause 1 is a paving amendment, which makes it clear that civil partnerships can be extended to any two people in accordance with the proposed new clause. Under that new clause, any two family members closely related to each other can enter into a civil partnership, the proviso being that in order to apply they must have lived together for a continuous period of 12 years, and both be at least 30 years of age. Proposed new Schedule A1 in Amendment No. 23 sets out the family relationships covered by my amendments. It is the standard list of close relationships of affinity and consanguinity, which is used in the Bill and in marriage law. It covers sibling, parental and grandparental relations, and aunts and uncles. Under my amendments, the two people do not have to be of the same sex, so may be of opposite sex.
	The amendments to Clause 3 are consequential, and the amendment to Clause 35 permits the Secretary of State—I ask which Secretary of State; it is not clear as five of them are involved in the Bill—to lay down regulations requiring proof that there has been a 12-year period of living together. Under tax law, gifts given to an individual more than seven years before death are exempt from inheritance tax. Any family that merely wanted to avoid inheritance tax would not use my amendments to do so, because of the 12-year rule.
	In Grand Committee, I tabled much broader amendments that sought to protect carers and friends who live together for a minimum of seven years. I underline the fact that the amendments today are even more tightly drawn and cover only those in close family relationships. It is those relationships where much of the real hardship arises. The 12-year period in my amendments makes it clear that the living arrangement must be a long-term one. It is a significant period, of course; 12 years is a long time, but putting forward that threshold test ensures that only the most sympathetic cases are covered. In practice, the beneficiaries will very often be older people who have lived together for many years. The 12-year home-sharing requirement also reduces the number of potential beneficiaries, which will greatly lessen the impact on the public purse.
	The Government's Bill states that no member of a civil partnership can enter into a marriage or another civil partnership without dissolving their current partnership. That provision would also apply to my amendments. So, if two sisters entered into a civil partnership and one of them later wished to marry, she would be free to do so provided that the civil partnership was dissolved. The Bill's mechanism, already in place for dissolution of a civil partnership, would give to each party a legally regulated way of dividing the assets and property.
	The Minister may say that the mechanisms for entering or exiting civil partnerships are inappropriate for, say, two sisters. If that is the objection then either the Government or I could table amendments at Third Reading to rectify that objection. But the principle at stake is whether a daughter who sacrifices many opportunities in her life to care for a parent deserves recognition. The question for today is whether two sisters who devote a lifetime of care to each other should be ignored by the Bill, with only same-sex relationships meriting the benefits that currently only apply to married couples.
	It is true that close relations already have some legal rights in relation to each other—for example, hospital visiting rights or inheritance in the case of intestacy. Family members are currently broadly in the same position as same-sex couples regarding the succession of a tenancy. But it is important to remember that close relations are not exempt from inheritance tax and capital gains tax.
	When the noble Lord, Lord Alli, spoke in support of a Bill introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Lester, inheritance tax was the first issue that he raised. He read from a letter written by the partner of Lord Montague of Oxford for whom the issue of inheritance tax was critical. The noble Lord, Lord Alli, told us that Lord Montague had to sell his possessions to pay the inheritance tax and said:
	"Surely this cannot be right. It is unfair to make people sell their family homes".—[Official Report, 25/1/02; col. 1697.]
	That is my point exactly.
	The Bill provides that those people in same-sex relationships through taking out a civil partnership will be able to obtain many more rights than those in family relationships. A central part of the Government's case for the Bill is the unique difficulties that arise for those in committed long term relationships. They have the problems of inheritance tax, the questions of tenancy, obtaining a survivor's pension, and so on. Such difficulties may arise in same sex relationships, but they also arise in ordinary families. Ordinary families are no less deserving—again, let us remember this Government's commitment to the family. Ordinary families' difficulties are no less serious and their legal status should not be inferior.
	Many noble Lords agree that it is unfair to discriminate so blatantly against family members. There are many noble Lords who strongly support the Bill, but who still wish to see it amended to benefit family members. My noble friend Lady Wilcox made that clear in her speech on 12 May 2004, at col. GC119. Alan Duncan, who speaks on these issues for Her Majesty's Opposition in another place, also made that point in an article in the Evening Standard on 30 March 2004.
	In summary, under the Bill same-sex couples in a civil partnership are given a higher status than family relationships. That is unfair and is certain to lead to blatant injustice against family members who all their lives have shown sacrificial love and commitment. It is right to correct this anomaly now. I beg to move.

The Lord Bishop of Rochester: My Lords, I applaud the stated purpose in bringing the Bill forward, which is to remove injustice in a variety of matters—tenancy, pensions, inheritance and other areas suffered by people who choose to live together.
	However, in spite of what is often said, I have noted that it is not the Government's intention to introduce same-sex marriage in the Bill and that its scope is not restricted to couples in a sexual relationship. The Church received assurances in that regard from the Department of Trade and Industry—one of the five departments involved in this matter.
	Whatever the source of individual phrases, whether it is the Book of Common Prayer or the Marriage Act, the public doctrine of marriage in this country, as I understand it, remains grounded in the Christian tradition. Any legislation must take account of that fact. If that is the case, could not the social justice and compassionate aspect of the Bill have been achievable through legislation that does not look so much like marriage? I do not blame people who are confused by the Government's intention. In the Bill the requirements of age, of prohibited degrees of relationship, of dissolution and nullity mirror those in matrimonial law. So which is it? Some clarification would be useful.
	By focussing so much on same-sex couples not related to one another, whether in a sexual relationship or not, the Bill neglects provision for the significant number of close relatives who choose to live together for mutual support or to care for each other. If the Bill is about dealing with the difficulties faced by those in long-term relationships, then how can it be just to ignore the case of two sisters living together for support and protection? If we are addressing injustice, can we overlook the plight of the daughter who dedicates her life to caring for an elderly parent? What is the status of vulnerable adults who live with a parent or another relative?
	In this day and age it is important to affirm the family and to support those who make sacrifices, sometimes almost beyond our ken, to care for members of their families. If the intention of the Bill is really to address unfairness—and I have heard that said so often—rather than introduce social engineering through the back door, the Minister, the Government and noble Lords will have no hesitation in considering the amendments with sympathy. They seem to be eminently sensible, modest in scope and practical. I hope that there will be much support for them in the House.

Lord Tebbit: My Lords, I rise to support my noble friend Lady O'Cathain. This matter was discussed at some length in Grand Committee, but the characteristic of Grand Committees is that they may be grand in title, but seldom in the number of people that attend them. Today the House is almost unnaturally packed for a Thursday, but then this Bill is, after all, about sex and tax. That normally brings in a number of Members of your Lordships' House.
	The Bill is to some considerable extent a parody on marriage, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Rochester implied, because in virtually every respect it makes civil partnership a mirror image of the state of marriage. Indeed, in the monumentally incompetent manner in which the Bill has been dealt with in this House, as observed by my noble friend Lady O'Cathain, the Government have now tabled amendments to the Civil Evidence Act 1968 that would accord to members of a civil partnership the same privileges in relation to their immunity from being compelled to give evidence against each other as those accorded to man and wife. There is virtually no advantage which accrues to marriage which is not being encompassed in the Bill.
	It is also a rather cruel Bill because it would appear to be suffused with unfair discrimination. The Government know this full well. In June 2003, a consultation document was issued by the Women & Equality Unit of the Department of Trade and Industry. As a former Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, I wonder what the Bill has to do with trade and industry. But never mind, it had to come from somewhere, I suppose, and presumably the Home Secretary did not want to do it—

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I hesitate to interrupt the noble Lord, but he will know that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is also the Minister for Women and Equality. On that basis, the Bill comes under that department and the Home Office wholeheartedly supports the Bill.

Lord Tebbit: My Lords, I would regard what the noble Baroness said as an excuse as much as an explanation. But at any rate, the document issued by the Women & Equality Unit of the DTI states at page 18, paragraph 2.6:
	"The creation of a new legal status that is open only to same-sex couples and not to opposite-sex couples would amount to a difference in treatment. However, the Government believes that this difference in treatment is justified because it would remedy an inequality that already exists between opposite-sex and same-sex couples".
	That is as may be, but, as my noble friend and the right reverend Prelate have pointed out, it creates new inequalities. I very much hope that if the Bill is enacted, at some stage or another two persons—for example, siblings—will go to the European Court and make a case that it is discriminatory and therefore in certain respects unlawful. It really would serve this Government right if such an action were to be successful.
	There is of course more than one way in which the Bill might be corrected. My amendments come later, but they would simply remove the restriction to same-sex couples and open it to couples of any sex. The amendments which my noble friend Lady O'Cathain has tabled are, as one would expect of her, better drafted and perhaps more subtly worded.
	However, as the Bill is presently drafted and as Ministers want it, it discriminates against family members who are listed in Part 1 of Schedule 1, and it discriminates by prohibiting the option of civil partnerships to persons of opposite sex. No adequate reason has been given for that. I believe that it is completely wrong. I believe that it is wrong when parents and children are excluded. I find it hard to see that the bonds by which they are united are weaker than those which may band homosexual couples, or indeed other couples of the same sex.
	The financial and tax impact of the death of a parent who has been cared for by a son or daughter at the sacrifice of his or her own career and financial well-being is no less than that of the surviving member of a homosexual couple who may have made a similar commitment one to the other, but for perhaps a far shorter period. Daughters are made just as homeless when inheritance tax demands force the sale of their family home as those who would be members of civil partnerships under the provisions of the Bill.
	If I interpreted rightly what the right reverend Prelate said, he alighted upon an aspect which had certainly not occurred to me; that is, the occasion when there is a relationship between a parent and a child who is particularly vulnerable. What happens then? The vulnerable child is left with an inheritance tax Bill which forces the sale of the home in which he or she has lived, and has been cared for by parents, throughout the whole of their natural life. Are these not matters which are of concern to us here and now?
	Ministers in Grand Committee half hinted that at some stage there might be legislation which would deal with these acknowledged inequities. But why not now? The only argument which was offered in my hearing in Grand Committee was that it was not appropriate for them to be in the Bill—perhaps because it sprang from the women's equality unit, or whatever it is called. But, surely, we have the opportunity to put right those defects in the Bill and I profoundly hope that we will do so.
	These amendments would do no damage whatever to those for whom the Bill was specifically drafted and I do not believe that those who feel that it was drafted for them and their particular lifestyles would feel it right to stand in the way of an amendment which put right another wrong.

Lord Alli: My Lords, we had a lengthy debate on the matter in Grand Committee, even though only a few of us were there. The Bill, although admittedly rather long, is quite simple when one looks at its core purpose. It is to recognise and acknowledge the existence of same-sex couples and to allow them finally and publicly to register their partnerships.
	I have great sympathy with the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, when she talks about siblings who share a home or a carer who looks after a disabled relative. Indeed, she will readily acknowledge that I have put the case several times—at Second Reading and in Grand Committee—and I have pushed the Government very hard to look at this issue. There is an injustice here and it needs to be dealt with, but this is not the Bill in which to do it. This Bill is about same-sex couples whose relationships are completely different from those of siblings.
	Perhaps I may remind the House that the Law Commission in its report, Sharing Homes, stated:
	"We have concluded that it is not possible to devise a statutory scheme for the determination of shares in a shared home which can operate fairly and evenly across all the diverse circumstances which are now to be encountered".
	I fail to see how these amendments can, in a wholly inappropriate Bill, remedy something when the Law Commission could not do so.
	The Solicitor Family Law Association states that it,
	"opposes extending the scope of the Bill to cover a wider range of family relationships. Having heard cross-party support for the Bill at Second Reading, we are disappointed by the Committee Stage amendments seeking extension of the Bill to other relationships. Civil partnership is not a suitable arrangement for relieving carers and adult children of the burden of paying inheritance tax. Civil partnership will be more than a financial relationship—it is designed to provide a legal recognition for committed loving relationships between couples and, as such, it will work well within the family justice system".
	Age Concern comments in much the same way, saying that it believes that it is in everyone's interests to allow couples to plan their future without fear of financial destitution. It welcomes the Civil Partnership Bill, as does Relate.
	These are complex issues. They need to be considered seriously and not through ill conceived amendments on a different matter. When we put pressure on the Government, asking them to take the issue of carers seriously, my noble friend Lord Filkin said that he would shortly undertake a study on cohabitation and would urge action as soon as he could.
	The noble Baroness's argument in Grand Committee was not only that she wanted to help carers but that she wanted to stop gay people having these sets of rights. As I said, I have supported calls for the issue of carers to be looked into. But I have to say to the noble Baroness, as I said to her in Grand Committee, that if an amendment looks like a wrecking amendment, feels like a wrecking amendment and looks as though it will wreck the Bill, she should not be surprised if some of us oppose it.
	I hear noble Lords shout "no", but the noble Baroness's principal position, and that of the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, on homosexuality is clear. They have never voted for legislation which encourages any kind of equalisation of rights for homosexuals. Indeed, on Radio 4 on 27 May 2004, the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, said about the gay marriage Bill, as he called it:
	"We not only have an epidemic of obesity—we have a huge problem with AIDS, and the Government's attitude is to do everything it can to promote buggery, knowing that those two are somewhat intimately connected".
	I find it far more difficult to accept these amendments when the Government have already given a commitment to look into these issues—issues which people like me and the noble Baroness care about. If this amendment, which is ill conceived, is agreed to, it will do nothing other than undermine the purpose of the Bill. This is not the Bill to deal with such issues.
	I urge the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment and if, after reflection, she cannot do so, I ask noble Lords to vote against it—not because they do not care about carers but because the amendment will undermine the Bill and the Government have already given a commitment in that respect. I say to the noble Baroness that I believe her amendment is a fig leaf to disguise her opposition to the Bill in total, and I hope that she will withdraw it.

Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: My Lords, I certainly do not have the skill to approach the debate on this Bill with the clarity employed by the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, but I rise to support wholeheartedly the points that she made.
	Again, I am certainly not a master of euphemism and, hence, there are one or two things that I think I must say bluntly to your Lordships. The first is that it is virtually impossible for anyone to understand a Bill which appears to me to be brought to this House on the back of a demand by a very vocal minority of society and which is so flawed that the Government must come back again and again with page after page of amendments. That strikes me as a very good reason why the Bill should be taken away by the Government and, if it must come back, it should be brought back in a form that many of us can begin to understand. Looking at last month's election results, I wonder how the general public could vote for a party that brings forward a Bill that even Members of your Lordships' House cannot properly understand.
	Secondly, to my mind, the Bill undermines the traditional family in two ways: it creates a form of gay marriage and it ignores family relationships in the way that it distributes benefits. I know that it will be denied that the Bill does, in fact, create a form of gay marriage. But I have just listened to the noble Lord, Lord Alli, who said that the problems that have been identified by the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, are entirely different from the problems that are being tackled by the Bill. The Bill deals with couples who want to indulge—again, I apologise; euphemism is not a strength of mine—in a relationship which most likely involves unnatural sexual practices. That is the reality of the situation that we are addressing here today.
	The amendments at least address the difficulties which the noble Lord, Lord Alli, wants to put on the long finger. He is saying, "No, because these people are not indulging in an unnatural sexual practice and because they are brothers, sisters, aunts or grandparents, they should not be included in a Bill which, ostensibly, is to do with benefits and equal treatment for people within society".
	The amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, would add family members to the list of beneficiaries, and they are very straightforward. Doubtless the Government will raise some technical issues against them. Perhaps they will take the Stonewall line and say that they would overcomplicate family law. But we are engaging in a wholesale rewriting of family law. Laws which, for centuries, have guided what we hope to achieve in resolving tax and inheritance difficulties and so on relating to the family are being rewritten wholesale. We are already complicating family law with a Bill which is 400 pages long.
	Are homosexuals to be the only beneficiaries? Why must we go through this whole legislative process with our eyes closed to the plight of family members who could benefit and who deserve to benefit? We are talking about a very deserving group of people. The amendments state that they must be close relatives who have lived together for 12 years and they must be over 30 years of age, which means that they have lived together as adults. Living together as minors does not count.
	One notable thing that strikes me about the Bill is that there is no residential requirement for homosexual couples to register a civil partnership. Because I do not understand the Bill with the clarity that others do, I ask whether any couple anywhere can form a civil partnership if it is to be financially beneficial. I would guess that that is not the case, but I do not understand why it is not if, in fact, there is no such residential requirement for homosexual couples.
	The amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, require proof that the relationships that are to be rewarded are long-term, committed relationships. Many people have been able to call to mind an example of the kind of case about which we are concerned. We know about sons who live at home for all their adult life, looking after an ageing parent; we also know of brothers and sisters who have lived together for 30, 40 or 50 years and who, to be blunt, have left it too late to get married. When one says to such people who have lived together in normal, loving, family relationships that they could lose their home to pay inheritance tax, they are shocked. If one were to tell them that there is a Bill before Parliament that could help them, but instead helps only homosexual couples, they would be appalled. I am.
	There are many problems with this Bill. I believe that these amendments make a bad Bill less bad and address a genuine injustice. I hope that noble Lords will support them.

Lord St John of Fawsley: My Lords, it is not my intention to speak for as long as the previous speaker. I shall move from the somewhat incendiary atmosphere of that speech back to the comparatively tranquil waters of the speeches of my noble friends Lady O'Cathain and Lord Tebbit. Straightaway, I ask my noble friend Lord Tebbit not to condemn the Grand Committee because it was sparsely attended. Surely, it is the quality of the Members who attend a Grand Committee and their dedication that is important.

Lord Tebbit: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for giving way and for the implied compliment, as I was one of those who attended. Almost throughout the Grand Committee it seemed odd to me that the number of members of the public exceeded that of the number of Peers present and on occasions the number of advisers exceeded the number of Peers present.

Lord St John of Fawsley: My Lords, whatever my noble friend may say and may regret, perhaps I can remind him that there were only 12 Apostles, which is slightly fewer than the number of Peers who attended Grand Committee sittings.

Baroness O'Cathain: No, my Lords, it is more.

Lord St John of Fawsley: My Lords, that is the detail, but the principle is the same. In any case, my noble friend Lord Tebbit was, as he kindly informed me, a former Secretary of State for Trade and Industry—an office that he held with such great distinction and seemingly interminable length—and he will know that St Franc"ois de Sale said that one soul was diocese enough for a bishop. So one member of a Grand Committee dedicated, informed and learned is quite sufficient.
	I shall leave that peripheral point and say that I have much sympathy with the point raised by my noble friend Lady O'Cathain. Many cases of injustice arise within family relationships. I do not see why the matter should not be dealt with in this Bill. I believe that organisations such as Stonewall, which has written to most Members of this House, do not do a great service to their own cause by resisting the remedying of injustice to the family. It is likely to make the homosexual community more unpopular rather than less.
	I know of a case in your Lordships' House, for example, involving siblings. For many years a Peer had lived happily with his brother and sister, but on the death of his brother, he and his sister were obliged to sell the family home, which they did not want to do, and move into other accommodation which was not as satisfactory. This is a problem that should concern us and be seen as such.
	While I applaud the intention in the amendment, it seems to me that a half-baked drafted amendment—if one can have such a thing—does not remedy the injustice fully. It adds another injustice. Why should members of a family have to live together for 12 years and be over 30 before they can have such a right? Surely, that is another form of discrimination. Those are provisions that I believe would be much better removed.
	On the point made by my noble friend Lady O'Cathain that there would be greater expense for the public purse in certain circumstances, I say so what? If one is remedying injustice, one should not confuse money and morals. They are very different matters. That used to be an argument used against the abolition of capital punishment: it is more expensive to keep people in prison than to execute them. We should abandon that.
	Perhaps I can suggest to the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland of Asthal, a way out of this dilemma. Would it be possible for her to return with a form of words, different from that proposed in the amendment, with which the Government agree and which they believe would be acceptable to the House? That would be of service both to the general cause that she supports and to human rights and human compassion in general. Let her not fall into the same trap of confusing money and morals, in which my noble friend dipped her toes, because money and morals are totally different. They are not connected, as anyone who knows life in the City will have observed. Yes, I have gone too far. I withdraw that remark. They are not connected, as anyone who has observed certain sections of life in the City will know. I hope that the Minister will take this as a serious suggestion because clearly many people in the House feel deeply about it.

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, we on these Benches object strongly to all the amendments in this group. The noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, said that this is not a gay marriage Bill. We say that it is not a tax relief Bill either. There is a strongly arguable case for some kind of relief from inheritance tax for family members who have been carers to enable them to continue living in the house where they have carried out their caring duties. But that is a different argument and this is not the place or the time for that argument. This Bill is inappropriate for dealing with that issue.
	Even the movers of the amendment do not suggest that it should be possible, at the same time, to combine a civil partnership and a marriage. Among other things, that means that tax relief would not extend to a married child caring for a parent, which is a very common situation. The country is, after all, full of grandparents. That would be so even if the child who was caring was separated but not divorced.
	A daughter looking after elderly married parents could not enter into a civil partnership with either of them. She would have to wait until one of them died, by which time the other might not have the mental capacity to enter into one. It would also mean that if one member of a family civil partnership wished to enter into a marriage, he or she could not do so without going to the court to get an order dissolving the civil partnership. A dissolution order must show that the civil partnership has irretrievably broken down. That would not necessarily be the case—a daughter might well want to marry a man who is willing to move in with her and to help care for her parents. That shows that the Bill is wholly unsuitable because it shows up all sorts of unnecessary anomalies.
	The noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, could have proposed that a civil partnership within one of her categories could, unlike other civil partnerships, be dissolved whenever one party wishes, which would overcome that particular problem. But to do that would show that her proposal is something entirely different, not only in detail but in its whole nature, from a civil partnership as envisaged in the Bill.
	The only people within the noble Baroness' list of people eligible to enter into the family civil partnership are those who would not be eligible to enter into the kind of civil partnership proposed in the Bill, because they would be within the prohibited degrees.
	I fear that the amendment is being used as a stalking horse for those who are basically opposed to the whole purpose of the Bill. I believe that it would be better if some of those—I am not saying it is true of all of them—who support the Bill were to be more honest about their motives in backing these amendments. We object to the Bill being hijacked for an ulterior purpose that would defeat the objectives for which the Bill was drafted.

Lord Monson: My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, sits down perhaps I may ask him a question. He prefaced his remarks with the words, "We on these Benches". Does that mean that the Liberal Democrats will not be allowed a free vote on these amendments?

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I must make the position of these Benches clear. This is an issue on which there will be a party Whip, but there will be an exemption on the basis of conscience for those Members who do not feel able to support it.

The Lord Bishop of Southwell: My Lords, I support the amendments standing in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain. I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Alli. This is not a wrecking amendment. I think we have passed beyond that.
	The House may think that mixed messages come from these Benches. I suppose that from time to time they do. I am glad to be singing in unison with my good friend the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Rochester today. However, I should like to quote from the submission by the Archbishop's Council to the DTI of September 2003, the tone of which is neither one of antipathy nor of aggression. It stated:
	"The hybrid nature of the present proposals is a recipe for confusion".
	I have had an episodic engagement with this legislation. I am a new boy in the House. Certainly I, like many others—as has been alluded to—am confused. There is confusion in the general population.
	The Archbishop's Council went on to submit:
	"We accept that there are issues of social justice which need to be addressed in the light of changing patterns of relationship in our society".
	I should also like to quote from a statement made by the Catholic bishops of England and Wales on 23 April. I know that this will gladden the heart of the noble Lord, Lord St John of Fawsley. It stated:
	"We are strongly committed to upholding the unique status and meaning of marriage and its importance for the well-being of society. Whatever the intention of this proposed legislation there is a real danger that the deeply rooted understanding of marriage as a permanent and exclusive relationship between a woman and a man, and as the best context for raising children will be eroded."
	We have tried to stop that erosion. If the Government's laudable aim is to right social injustices, is it not perverse that the considerable investment of time, energy and focus applied to this specific legislation at the same time creates greater injustices?
	In the February 2004 session of the General Synod of the Church of England, a Motion was passed that emanated from York, which, among other things:
	"strongly affirmed that marriage is central to the stability and health of human society and warrants a unique place in the law of this country",
	and:
	"recognised there are issues of hardship and vulnerability for people whose relationships are not based on marriage, which need to be addressed by the creation of new legal rights".
	That follows the spirit of the amendments in trying to broaden the legislation.
	There are situations where family members do not have adequate protection—a matter rehearsed today—in terms of inheritance and property law. The Government should allocate a similar amount of Civil Service time and resources to the issues as has been invested in same-sex couples. Indeed, it could be argued that more people might benefit from such legislation than from the Civil Partnership Bill. I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, previously acceded to that point.
	It has been argued that for every case the Government can state will benefit from the Civil Partnership Bill almost 60 times as many cases will apply to people in ordinary families.
	Some argue that it is perfectly legitimate to debate the defects in inheritance law, landlord and tenant law and so on, but that the proposed Bill remedies those problems only for a select group of people—those who become civil partners under the Bill. In other words, the new legislation is, to my layman's mind, partial, discriminatory and perverse if it stands unamended.
	The noble Lord, Lord Lester, and I believe also the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, have said that this is not the Bill, not the time and not the place and that other categories will be dealt with in following legislation. In the mean time, I hope these amendments succeed in gaining the support of the House. Is the Minister prepared to give a categorical assurance that the Government will speedily follow up with legislation that benefits other categories of relationship?

Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, I had not intended to intervene in the debate—and I must apologise to my noble friend for missing the first moment or two of her speech. I do so because of the contributions from the noble Lords, Lord Alli and Lord Goodhart.
	I warmly supported the Bill at an earlier stage for exactly the reasons that the noble Lord, Lord Alli, supported it. I had great sympathy with his prime object in the Bill. I therefore was upset by his contribution and the suggestion that those who support the amendment were supporting a wrecking amendment. He made a great mistake in making that suggestion because I believe that many noble Lords have great sympathy with the part of the Bill which was his object, but who also believe that the case advanced by my noble friend deserves support.
	I think I was even more shocked by the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. I find it strange that the Liberal Democrat Party should think that this is the kind of amendment that deserves a Whip to be imposed on its Members. I shall observe with interest how many members of his party support that Whip. Also, for him to suggest that those who support the amendment are supporting a stalking horse is deeply offensive and quite unworthy. Of course he had a legitimate point to make, a point about the practical difficulties of the amendment. Those arguments could legitimately have been advanced without casting aspersions on those who take a different view from him. I give way to the noble Lord.

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I rise simply to point out that I clearly did not say that all those who support the amendment were using it as a stalking horse. I did say—and I stand by this—that in my view, some of them are.

Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, I can only suggest to the noble Lord that he would have done his cause more justice if he had put greater emphasis on the worthiness of the cause advanced by my noble friend before moving on to the technical difficulties.
	I have only one other point to make to those who say that the amendment is in the wrong Bill and the wrong place. If one looks back over the whole history of reform down the centuries, one discovers that one needs to pursue reform pretty relentlessly. It is the immediate response of a government who do not want something to say, "Well, at some time in the future, we will look at that and introduce legislation", but it may be many years before we see that legislation. If we really want legislation; if we want a government to move; we must carry an amendment such as this. If the Government then do not think that it can be amended satisfactorily later, they may be forced to come back with some serious proposals for legislation that will cover the point.
	So I hope that my noble friends and noble Lords in all parts of the House will not be led astray by that argument, which was the case behind the stalking horse point made by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. I hope that the House will support my noble friend's amendment.

Lord Kilclooney: My Lords, as King Henry VIII said to each of his many wives, this will not take up much of your time. First, I support the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain. I was interested to hear the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Alli, in which he identified that the Bill is clearly a Bill to facilitate same-sex partnerships and that it indeed discriminates against ordinary family members, but said that he thought that that discrimination should continue on the Government's assurance that they will consider it at some time away in the future. It would be wrong to continue with that discrimination against ordinary family members. We should not be making a distinction like that in favour of same-sex relationships and at the same time discriminating against ordinary family members.
	I am in the unusual position of being not only a Member of your Lordships' House but still being elected by universal franchise to a constituency in the United Kingdom—namely, Strangford in Northern Ireland—as a Member of the Northern Ireland Assembly, which, being suspended, will not have a say in the matter. I recently received a letter from a constituent in Killyleagh in County Down. That lady looked after a handicapped child for 14 years. She then went back to work. She then had to look after her mother for another 16 years. She then reached pension age and, instead of receiving a pension of £77.45 a week, she was reduced to £61.47 per week because she had failed to apply for attendance allowance while she cared for her handicapped child. She did so at her own time and expense; she applied for no grants or allowances. She was then discriminated against when she reached pension age.
	Under the Bill, a person in a same-sex partnership would not be discriminated against. Ordinary people will lose out under the Bill if enacted. More than 90 per cent of the people of the United Kingdom will be discriminated against if the Bill becomes law. I am astounded that the Liberal Democrats, of all people, want to discriminate against 90 per cent of the people of the United Kingdom.

Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I do not want to delay the House, but I should like to make one brief point that has not been made, which is that committed birth families are not an inert constituency. I am concerned that the Bill as drafted will be seen as the Government once again sidelining those birth families who are dedicated to caring for their children—who are, after all, the nation's children—and to the mutual care of the vulnerable in their family. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Rochester drew attention to the sacrifices that many people in such positions make.
	I draw the attention of Members on the Government Front Bench, who, sadly, are not listening, to the fact that there are about 15 or 16 million parents in this country who represent a significant vote. Many of those parents are getting fed up with the Government constantly sidelining them. The Bill could have been drafted—and still could be—to include many of those people. The noble Lord was right to say that the exact wording of the amendments may not be right. Let us put the amendments in place so that the Government can go away and have the opportunity to think again.

Lord Fitt: My Lords, I rise briefly to give my total support to the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain. I know that on occasions such as this, when anything relating to sexual matters is debated in this House, Northern Ireland Members who are former MPs but now represent their constituency in another way are put down as being to some extent homophobic. I have heard that said repeatedly. In fact, once when going through the Lobby when voting on a Bill such as this, I heard a Government Whip saying, "Here comes the Pope's brass band".
	I do not see it that way. The noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, has made an unanswerable case for including families. The Government repeatedly say that they want to bring about inclusiveness. The reason for the Bill is that they want to include that minority of the population whom they feel have been victims of discrimination. In so doing, they have excluded the vast majority of the normal population in Northern Ireland. As an Opposition Member said, if the Bill is passed as it stands, it will create antagonism against the homosexual community in Northern Ireland. By the way, I want to put on record that I resent how the homosexual community has hijacked that very good word, "gay". Why not call them homosexuals? Referring to them as gays lets them off a particular hook.
	By her amendment, the noble Baroness has brought to the attention of the House the total exclusion of family people. She has received letters; I know of members of my own extended family who would like to be included with the family under the Bill, but they are not and they feel bitterly resentful about that. I can see no reason for excluding families. I do not go along with the line that, this year, next year, sometime or never, the Government will legislate to right that wrong. Now is the time to right that wrong. I heard the noble Lord, Lord Alli, and Members on the Liberal Benches, say that those who support the noble Baroness were supporting wrecking amendments. I do not see it that way at all. I do not believe that they are wrecking amendments.

Lord Alli: My Lords, perhaps I may pick up my noble friend on one point. One thing that has been pretty amazing about the Bill is that the word homophobia has not been used at any point. In my recollection, no one during all the days in Grand Committee and all our debates in the House, has said that the noble Baroness, by putting forward a case for carers, was homophobic. What we disagree about essentially is whether this is the place to do it. It is a bad construction, which serves no one well. In my view, it undermines the Bill. Neither I nor anyone else has said that any of the motives behind such amendments are homophobic. I hope that my noble friend will at least accept that reassurance that the House has moved on.

Lord Fitt: My Lords, it is suspected that many people who claim to support this Bill are sotto voce opposed to it. It may not have been said within this House, but it has certainly been said in these corridors and further afield that anyone who is opposed to this Bill has homophobic tendencies.
	I do not see where the Government would find any difficulty whatever in including the categories that have been so ably put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain. I have received hundreds of letters from all over Northern Ireland, many of them from people of a different religion than my own—for example, evangelical Protestants and Presbyterians. They certainly would not support the noble Baroness on other issues, because she has an Irish pronunciation of her name; but on this occasion there is a certain unanimity among all the people from Northern Ireland who have corresponded with me. Many of them do not like this Bill—I do not particularly like this Bill, and I have no hesitation in saying that. I do not put a tooth in it. Many people in Northern Ireland do not like this Bill. Putting aside my own—what some people would refer to as—prejudices, there is a great injustice and inequality being brought about by this Bill in the way that it totally excludes people in a family.

Lord Mackay of Clashfern: My Lords, I rise to support the amendment proposed by my noble friend Lady O'Cathain. I declare an interest as the vice-president of the Princess Royal's Trust for Carers. A good number of those who would be affected by these amendments are carers, who at present relieve the state of heavy responsibilities.
	I can claim to have had some part in the development of family justice in this country over some time. Certainly, I would not wish to be a party to disrupting or damaging that general body of law. On the other hand, the situation of members of families who live together in a supportive family relationship over a period of 12 years and more should be recognised and acknowledged by this House. It is said that this is not the Bill in which to do it. I take exception to that, because this is a competent amendment. We know that the resources of five great government departments are behind this Bill, and I do not believe that they would have much difficulty in drafting the necessary amendments to give effect to the thrust of this principal amendment if it is passed. It is not right for us to let an opportunity pass to rectify an injustice in this area. We owe it to the people who give devoted sacrifice as carers in family situations to take this opportunity of a competent amendment to deal with that matter.
	The noble Lord, Lord Alli, pointed out that the Law Commission had said how difficult it was to deal with the various situations of shared ownership. Of course, I am conscious of that fact. This is a modest amendment in that sense; it does not try to deal with everything. It deals only with a fairly small group, by comparison with the whole, of those who are disadvantaged; namely, those who are have lived together for 12 years and who are over 30 years of age. That will not encompass everyone, but it is a good start. Your Lordships should support these amendments and leave it for later stages of the Bill, if the Government wish, to seek to cater for the detail in a different way to these amendments. The five great departments involved are able to do that.

The Lord Bishop of Worcester: My Lords, I know that it is true, as my colleague the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwell said, that this is a subject about which ferociously mixed messages might come from all sides of the House and indeed from these Benches. I want to make a much smaller point. I hope that in her response the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, will explain why she has narrowed the scope of the amendments compared with those that she proposed in Grand Committee. It is important that she should offer that explanation, because when I heard her move them in Committee—I say that I was there on one occasion simply to show that it was not always the quality that was present—I felt that she had a case. It should be possible to devise a means whereby people could register a caring relationship and receive some relief. I was not wholly persuaded that this was the Bill in which to do it, but it seemed to me that she had a case.
	I find it difficult to accept the notion—and I speak out of a long theological tradition here—that one should have to register in order to have the privileges that come from being a family member. It seems to me that I am a member of the family of which I am a member not from any choice, registration, or covenant, but by virtue of a given relationship that I have. In the amendment as she has now drawn it, there is the confusion of two different objectives; one to support the family, and I wholly support that, and the other to support and honour caring relationships, and I wholly support that. If you are going to do the second, it seems to me that a far wider group of people should be included, as in the initial Committee amendments. If you are going to support the family, it should precisely not be necessary for people to register partnerships in order to achieve the benefits of family membership.
	In his speech, the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, listed the other injustices that would arise if you drew the boundaries in the way in which these amendments do. That needs to be taken seriously. I say all this to try to look at this amendment, at this late stage in the Bill, in a detailed and rational way, and not simply to engage in the fundamental debate, which of course goes on all the time under the surface.

Baroness Wilcox: My Lords, we on these Conservative Benches, Her Majesty's Official Opposition, have a free vote. Let me be clear that I shall support the amendment proposed by my noble friend and I hope that as many Peers as possible from all sides of the House shall do so.
	We had an impassioned debate on this subject in Committee. It is a Bill that responds to a demand for justice from couples who cannot marry because they are same-sex couples, but who wish to affirm their commitment to each other on a lifelong basis. I have made clear at every stage that I respect and support that, as I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Alli, will be able to confirm. I have no doubt that this House will hear the call for justice from those people. The fact that this massive Bill has proceeded so quickly is evidence of that.
	However, the call for justice is not, as we have heard, confined to gay couples. Of course it is heart-rending and wrong that the survivor of such a couple should find the roof torn from over their head by inheritance tax after death. That issue was raised with passion and conviction by the noble Lord, Lord Alli, and others in this House after the tragic death of Lord Montague of Oxford.
	I agree with that. But I cannot understand why many of those who support this Bill want to deny the same call for justice—that same right to affirm life-long love and commitment—to other couples who have lived long together but, like some same-sex gay couples, cannot marry. I cannot understand that. To my mind, that risks turning this Bill from a Bill that is designed to bring justice and dignity to those who cannot marry to a Bill designed to help a subset of those people who happen to be gay.
	It is wrong for gay people, who have suffered for too long from discrimination, to secure for themselves what this Bill gives and to resist it for others, who are equally loving, equally committed and equally debarred from the ability to marry. Why is it right, as it is in my view, for a gay couple to be able to affirm a civil partnership and to secure the privileges and responsibilities that will flow from that in the next finance Bill, and for a sister and a sister who have shared a life together not to be able to do so?
	I do not and will not understand that. It grieves me that those who have fought so long and nobly for this Bill turn their backs on the cry for justice from others who are equally deserving. Bluntly, that is what all those who oppose the noble Baroness's amendment will be doing. In Grand Committee, the noble Baroness moved a similar amendment that I supported. But, with the strange Grand Committee procedure, which I think is being greatly overused in this House, there was no opportunity for us to vote.
	However, disappointingly, there was opposition from supporters of the Bill, as if the cause of the people that this amendment champions was in opposition to the cause of those that the Bill champions. There is no such conflict—direct or implied. The call for justice represents two sides of the same coin.
	I found the attitude of the Liberal Democrats in Committee, as set out by the noble Lords, Lord Goodhart and Lord Lester of Herne Hill, depressingly flinty hearted. The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, said that we were wasting our time and that we were trying to turn this Bill into a tax avoidance Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, said that it was,
	"humbug . . . to point to other disadvantaged groups".—[Official Report, 12/6/04; GC 119.]
	Those words deserve to be sent to every family carer in this country as the official view of the Liberal Democrat Party. If the noble Baroness divides the House, I should rather be in her lobby fighting for family carers and for siblings than in that of the noble Lords, Lord Goodhart and Lord Lester, who articulate the "Bah Humbug" attitude of the Liberal Democrats to those deserving people.

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness. I have not been able to be here for the whole debate, but I have heard everything that she has just said and some of what she said earlier. As she knows, in my Private Member's Bill, which I think was one of the origins of this Bill, I attempted to deal with heterosexual couples as well as homosexual couples.
	I was then persuaded by the Government that this was not the right Bill in which to achieve that important reform. But the notion that somehow we are guilty of double-standards is, frankly, quite ludicrous. I would like the noble Baroness to reflect on what she has just said.

Baroness Wilcox: My Lords, I was there of course. I did hear the proposition that the noble Lord, Lord Lester, made in his Bill. I did hear that he wanted it for heterosexuals and I know that he has spoken to the Government about how this will proceed. But I do not remember him at any time dealing with carers; neither does it alter the fact that I quoted him correctly. In Committee, he said that it was,
	"humbug . . . to point to other disadvantaged groups".—[Official Report, 12/5/04; GC 119.]
	One of the few objections to the amendments that were moved at an earlier stage was that they were cast too wide; that, by chance, they could benefit young people in their 20s who had not yet married, but who may, as it were, hedge their bets on tax by registering a partnership with a parent who might then die relatively young.
	As my noble friend Lady O'Cathain, has told us, the amendments that she has put forward today are much more narrowly drawn. They cover only people who cannot marry, are over the age of 30—thus excluding the kind of opportunistic case that I have described—and who have lived together for a period of 12 years. Twelve years is a high hurdle: surely, that is proof of a lasting commitment when, sadly, many a marriage nowadays is dissolved far faster than that.
	I repeat that these people are debarred from marrying each other just as surely as gay couples. They include the best of our country; namely, sons who have lived for years caring for an aged father, daughters who have done likewise, and unmarried sisters who have shared the same home for, in some cases, 60 or so years. To ask for justice for them is not to wreck the Bill. To recognise what they have given, give and will give is not to wreck the Bill. To confer the right to this status on them does not undermine marriage or the validity of civil partnerships for gay couples.
	It is to make a worthwhile Bill an even better Bill. Those who support the Bill and who see it as a great step forward should surely be ready to go one short step further for those family carers and sharers who suffer the same disadvantages and are denied the same privileges and responsibilities as gay couples. Those who want to defend marriage should not see this as undermining in any way the status of marriage. Surely, this is ground on which the advocates of both sides of the argument could come together and proclaim their common humanity.
	Frankly, it is a cop-out to say, as some have, "Yes, we agree it is a good case, but it is for another Bill". We have waited a long time for this Bill. The time and the opportunity are now. It may not recur for years. The chance is here—not in another Bill this year, next year, sometime, never—now to do justice to a group of people who are slightly but not so very much wider than those who are covered by the present Bill. To do so would be in the best traditions of this House, which, in recent times, has shown itself time and again to be a force for decency, fairness and natural justice. If the noble Baroness asks the opinion of this House, I shall support her amendment.

Noble Lords: Hear, hear.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, this has been an unusual debate for this House because, perhaps I may say, it has lacked the temperance that I have come to expect. In responding, I hope that I shall be able to answer many of the issues raised by noble Lords. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, that there is sympathy and understanding in relation to the difficulties that are faced by carers, by siblings and by others. But, contrary to what has been said, this is not a tax Bill, an inheritance Bill or a sex Bill.
	The Bill recognises and acknowledges the reality of same-sex partnerships. It has been described in really quite trenchant terms. The noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, called it "a nightmare", "a convoluted mess" and "a Bill that discriminates against families". The noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, went further. He said that it had been prepared in a "monumentally incompetent manner", that it was a "cruel Bill", "an unfair discriminatory Bill" and a Bill that "created difference in treatment and inequality". Those comments are taken very seriously by the Government. I say to those who made them that I wholeheartedly disagree.
	This is not a cruel Bill or a discriminatory Bill. It is a Bill that has been long awaited by those who have sought recognition for their relationships. Of course, I hear what noble Lords opposite say about how long it has taken for this Bill to come to the House. I say gently that of course noble Lords opposite were in power for some 18 years: we heard nothing about the rights, the responsibilities and the inequity with which we now seek to deal.
	It is this Government who have sought to address that issue. We seek to address it with fairness, with humanity and with compassion. But we need to be clear because many noble Lords seek to suggest, in effect, that in this Bill we rewrite the whole of the legislation virtually in relation to social security and financial support on which those in our country have come to be reliant. Some £90 billion is expended by the Government on social security and financial support. We need to be clear that in civil partnerships, couples will be mutually responsible for each other. We have talked at length about rights, but we have not, I think, underlined sufficiently the responsibilities.
	Those who will enjoy the benefits of a civil partnership will enjoy the rights confirmed as a result of the new creation of that relationship in terms of inheritance provision. But they will also have to accept the responsibilities for social security and financial support. These amendments would require the tearing up of all social security law since Beveridge. No pensioner would get an income-related benefit such as pension credit from the state if their civil partner son could support them. No brother could get an income-related disability benefit if his civil partner sister could support him. No unemployed adult son could get jobseeker's allowance if his civil partner mother could support him, and no son could fail to pay child support if his mother could meet the Bill. I could go on.
	All such benefits would belong not to the individual but to the relationship, which in social security terms would put the clock back to the 1930s. I know that that is not the intention of the noble Baroness. So that is in part why we say, "not this Bill".
	The noble Baroness has voiced many issues in relation to those who care. But we must also recognise that these provisions would apply to all families and all estates. The reality of that is that the greatest estates in this country could be passed from father to son or son to sister without there ever being payment of inheritance tax. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, has made it very clear that she would like to see the abolition of all inheritance tax so that no estate would ever be burdened with it. I understand that position and I understand, in tabling these amendments, that that is what she desires. But I say to her, "not in this Bill". It would mark a serious departure from the way in which this country has traditionally looked at inheritance tax and capital gains. This is not a tax Bill.
	I hope that I have made it clear that in no way do I wish to denigrate the important relationships that some people have with family members with whom they share a home. Family relationships are of course valuable and society recognises them as such. Parents, children, siblings, aunts, grandparents and nephews all have relationships with each other that are already legally recognised. In Grand Committee I mentioned some of the rights that family members already enjoy such as, for example, recognition in intestacy laws, tenancy succession rights and a general acceptance of the right to visit relatives or attend their funerals.
	While there has been discussion of needs and rights, as I said earlier, not enough has been said about the financial responsibilities that are explicit in the Bill. I cite again the example I mentioned earlier of the duty to maintain a civil partner and any child of the family. Moreover, I respectfully point out that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Worcester was right to remind us that family relationships are not usually those of choice, but ones which come about as a result of birth. They can be either a joyous advantage or a somewhat dubious burden, but they are incapable of being thrown off.
	A very different relationship, and one to which we seek to give acknowledgement, is a relationship of choice between two adults who wish to commit their lives together.

Lord Tebbit: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness. I think that she may be inadvertently confusing the House a little. Would she confirm that this Bill of itself contains no provisions whatever about tax? In whatever form it is enacted, it will be for the Government and the Treasury to decide what they should do about tax. If the amendments tabled by my noble friend were accepted, they could decide not to extend the rights of married couples regarding inheritance tax to anyone else. It is up to them how far they go, not up to my noble friend.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I do not accept that as right because we have been absolutely clear about the basis on which we have brought these provisions before this House. We have outlined the consequences which we reasonably expect will flow from the formation and registration of such relationships, and it is on that basis that we have had our debate.
	I have accepted the statements made by the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, that she too seeks to have those issues addressed. She seeks exemption from inheritance tax for those for whom she is pursuing this advantage and, indeed, she would advocate the abolition of all inheritance tax. That is the true basis on which this House is debating these issues.

Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, I am very sorry to do this because I do not want to delay the House any longer. However, at this point I must say to the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, that I am very upset at the way she keeps on saying that I am advocating the abolition of inheritance tax. I certainly do not like inheritance tax, but in no way is this a wrecking amendment and in no way is it an amendment to abolition inheritance tax. This amendment seeks solely to right injustice.
	I have said time and again that the Government are righting injustice in this Bill—to same-sex couples. I have not mentioned the words "homosexual" or "homophobia" at all; I refer to same-sex couples. By creating the right to right that injustice, the Government are causing another major injustice. That is it, full square. My amendments say nothing else. I really do not want to be told two or three times that this is a move solely to abolish inheritance tax. I do not like the tax, but there are lots of things that I do not like. However, I am not bringing them into this Bill, and that is a fact.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, of course I hear what the noble Baroness says and I do not seek to suggest that she is doing anything that she is not entitled to do. But in relation to each of the groups to which she has referred, the consequence would be that they would not be subject to inheritance tax by virtue of their being excluded.
	The amendments would allow people in specified family relationships to register as civil partners of each other once they have shared a home for a minimum of 12 years. Since Grand Committee the period of years of continuous home sharing has increased from seven years to 12 years, and it may prove to be very difficult to verify that such a requirement had been met.
	But what about a family of three sisters, or two spinster sisters who are joined by their widowed sister? I cannot see how these amendments would help them, and the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, setting out the differences in relation to those relationships were sound. The noble Baroness has said that this Bill is highly discriminatory, but how would three sisters living together choose which two of them would form a civil partnership?
	I have not heard a great deal about the need for the relatives who come within the noble Baroness's additional categories of civil partnerships to be given special legal recognition for their relationship together as a couple. But this is an important part of what civil partnership offers to the same-sex couples for whom it is designed. Yet we have heard much debate on the financial implications of the Bill, and in particular on their need for exemptions. I am under no illusion about the consequences that would flow. We have already discussed at length our concerns in this regard. The amendment could lead to a sequence of family members forming civil partnerships with other family members in order to continue the situation.
	As I said in Grand Committee, the Law Commission's report on home sharers in 2002 concluded that no single solution was possible for all the different permutations of home sharers. My noble friend Lord Alli was quite right to allude to this because it is a difficult and problematic issue. The needs of closely related family members who live together are very different from those of same-sex couples, who lack legal recognition of their relationship together as a couple because they cannot marry.
	I recognise the concerns about what some have suggested is the devaluing of marriage and that there is not a significant difference. We have made it clear again and again that we see a very significant difference between the consequences, import and nature of marriage and the civil partnerships that we are now contemplating.
	The argument could be made that this kind of arrangement makes the prospect of marriage more difficult for people. The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, set out the difficulties involved in ending a partnership when a sibling or another person wishes to enter into a marriage. If a mother and daughter entered into a civil partnership, the daughter caring for her mother would have to go through a court-based dissolution procedure in order to marry.
	I heard what the noble Lord, Lord St John of Fawsley, said in relation to bringing forward a different amendment to cure the flaws inherent in the amendment of the noble Baroness. However, we do not believe it would be possible to do that within the Bill. I have looked at the detail of what is proposed. I am unconvinced not only of the practicalities of these proposals, even as revised since Grand Committee; but, also, I am firmly unconvinced that the Bill is the right place for them.
	I find it highly unlikely that noble Lords would wish to open marriage to people in close family relationships—I am dealing of course with the issue in terms of heterosexual couples—and, in the same way, it is not appropriate to make civil partnerships available to them either. We believe that opening up such a formal legal relationship to family members could lead to questions about the nature of the family unit, blurring the integrity of laws prohibiting sexual relationships within the family.

The Lord Bishop of Winchester: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I apologise that I had to be somewhere else earlier today.
	I was surprised to hear the noble Baroness mention marriage. It seems to me that, throughout the passage of the Bill so far, the Government have taken pains to say that the proposed civil partnership is not an analogy with marriage. It has nothing in it about permanence nor about exclusivity and so, on both grounds, it seems to me that the Government are right to say that.
	However, it is curious that all this is being done in respect of a partnership which is quite specifically undefined. It seems to me that the last thing it can be right for the Minister to do is to draw parallels with marriage at this stage.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, let me deal with the two issues raised by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Winchester in relation to permanence and exclusivity.
	It is clear from the very nature of the relationships recognised in the Bill that the provisions relate to long-term partnerships. The dissolution provisions, the nullity provisions, and so on, make it clear that we are dealing with long-term relationships. As to exclusivity, it is clear from the provisions that a person can enter into only one civil partnership at any given time. He or she is not entitled to have more than one relationship while in the civil partnership. So, in relation to permanence and exclusivity, I disagree with the right reverend Prelate.
	If the civil partnership is to be available to those within the bounds of consanguinity, the whole nature of the family and the family relationship will change significantly. The rights and responsibilities which are given to a civil partner are very different indeed from the rights and responsibilities which would be given to a family member. It is in that sense that I made my comments about the way in which these matters are put together.
	A civil partnership is not a financial deal or a matter of tax avoidance; it is a new legal relationship which gives legal recognition to same-sex couples who have found the person they wish to share their lives with, separate from any family ties. It is the purpose of the Bill to give that legal recognition to same-sex couples in their life together as a couple. That is a fundamental part and purpose of the Bill before us.
	It is a partnership that cannot be described as a commercial contract or simply an arrangement of convenience. Those who enter into these partnerships will have to take the rights and responsibilities extremely seriously because they are quite onerous. I ask the noble Baroness not to press the amendment.

Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, I thank everyone who has taken part in this very good debate. I have no intention of spending any more time on it. I shall write to all noble Lords who have made comments and asked me questions after I have read Hansard. I beg leave to test the opinion of the House.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 3) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 148; Not-Contents, 130.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.

Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I beg to move that consideration on Report be now adjourned. In moving the Motion, I suggest that the Report stage begin again not before 3.10 p.m.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Veterinary Practices

Baroness Trumpington: rose to ask Her Majesty's Government how they see the future of rural veterinary practices in the United Kingdom.
	My Lords, the importance of the subject of this debate is reinforced by the quality and expertise of those noble Lords who have so kindly agreed to speak. I am most grateful.
	The head of a Sussex veterinary practice recently wrote to a farming friend of mine, as follows:
	"The dramatic downturn in farming has resulted in a loss of 75 per cent of farms clients to the practice in the last ten years. The most difficult consequence for me"—

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords—

Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, is the noble Baroness talking to me?

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, if the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, will forgive me, I wish that noble Lords leaving the Chamber could have conversations outside, as it is quite difficult to hear the noble Baroness.

Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I hope that that interruption does not count as part of my 10 minutes. I shall start the letter again:
	"The dramatic downturn in farming has resulted in a loss of 75 per cent of farms clients to the practice in the last ten years. The most difficult consequence for me has been that my colleagues have no exposure to large animals and consequently do not feel confident in dealing with them. This means that unless I am prepared to always be on duty, we are not providing a proper 24 hour service. As a result, it has been decided that the practice will cease to do farm work".
	That letter just about sums up the present deteriorating situation.
	Your Lordships will remember that not so very long ago we debated the plight of rural pharmacies. I make no apologies about returning to my roots, since I share the view, espoused recently by the director of the Scottish Crop Research Institute, John R. Hillman, that agriculture is relatively more important than most other human activities. It is, as he said, the basis of sustenance and civilisation. But nowadays, in terms of the perception of too many of those who live in our towns and cities, and of the body politic, it seems less important than entertainment, celebrity, sport, recreation or just about any other activity.
	In recent years, the agricultural industry has suffered its greatest series of tragedies for over half a century at least. The veterinary profession, too—at this point I should declare an interest as an honorary member of the British Veterinary Association—and particularly those in rural veterinary practice, also feel that their backs are up against the proverbial wall.
	Since the viability of farm veterinary practice is directly related to the viability of the agricultural livestock sector that it serves and the level of public support for services provided in the public good, concerns as to its future are not new. Vets have regularly in recent years pointed out that farm animal practice is becoming increasingly uneconomic and unfortunately the situation continues to deteriorate.
	The recent development of the animal health and welfare and disease surveillance strategy documents seems to indicate that the Government recognise that biosecurity and vets on farms are fundamental to ensuring that crises such as those experienced with BSE and foot and mouth disease do not occur again. Nevertheless, the veterinary profession continues to navigate uncharted waters with regard to the future of farm animal veterinary work—an important topic in a country in which livestock farming, I dare to hope, still matters. However, as a recent editorial in the Veterinary Record pointed out, there is little point in developing an animal health and welfare strategy if, by the time it is finalised, the infrastructure needed to apply it is no longer there.
	The inquiry report published last October concluded that, although there were sufficient vets in total, there were concerns about whether there were enough large animal practitioners. At a time when the Government's animal health and welfare strategy appeared to require a greater on-farm presence of vets, the economics of farming was leading to less use and further reducing the attractiveness of large animal practice. The report outlined difficulties in obtaining veterinary services in some parts of the country, the declining interest in large animal work among new graduates and the exodus of experienced large animal practitioners. The letter that I quoted from when I began bears out those statements.
	The report further pointed out that Defra needed to be aware of the impact that its strategies and changes to European food safety rules would have on current and future demand for vets, and expressed concern that the Competition Commission's recommendations on the supply of prescription-only medicines could lead to a reduction in the number of practices providing large animal veterinary services, which could affect Defra's ability to meet its objectives. It recommended that Defra should urgently assess the implications of the Competition Commission's recommendations and report the results in time for them to be taken into account when the animal health and welfare strategy was finalised. Have the Government undertaken this economic impact assessment and what was the result? If it has not yet been undertaken, why not?
	The Government are on record as stating that vets will have a key role to play in implementing their strategies on veterinary surveillance and animal health and welfare. Given the importance of that role, the fact that they have delayed their response to EFRACOM is clearly worrying vets, not least since it indicates to them a lack of urgency in the Government's approach, which hardly engenders confidence.
	The delay in the Government's response to the EFRACOM report has been made all the more frustrating because it has intensified the problems highlighted. With every passing day, veterinary practices throughout the UK are making strategic business decisions to withdraw farm services due to insufficient levels of farm work remaining to justify specific overheads. That results in the surviving farm animal practices travelling much further to service farms. Not only does that have severe animal health and welfare implications, since, in an emergency, the vet is no longer 10 to 15 minutes away but an hour or more, but it also has an economic effect because there are increased costs of attendance to the farmer. Despite the Defra consultant's views, that is not welcome news to farmers.
	The EFRACOM report also called for Defra to conduct a risk analysis of the consequences of not having enough large animal vets in the country against the background of the cost to the taxpayer of not being able to deal adequately with either the threat or an outbreak of a serious animal disease. It does not take a genius to realise that decreased veterinary attendance on farms results in fewer opportunities to collect surveillance data. After all, BSE was first reported due to the clinical expertise of practising vets present on farms. So I must ask whether the risk analysis has been carried out or whether it is in hand. If not, then again I must ask, why not? Cost is clearly an issue for the Government, but they need to weigh the cost implications of their strategies against the cost to the nation if disease control fails. I look forward to the Minister's reply.

Lord Carter: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, for enabling us to have this short debate on a very important subject. I declare an interest as an honorary associate member of the British Veterinary Association. As the noble Baroness said, farmers, the veterinary profession and the Government face a serious situation which could produce serious problems involving both animal and public health if action is not taken.
	In the four years between 1998 and 2002, the time spent by rural vets on farm animals halved for cattle and more than halved for sheep and pigs. That reflects the fact that the number of full-time vets working with farm animals dropped by 29 per cent. A number of factors are involved and the noble Baroness referred to some of them. The main one is falling farm profits. If money is short, the vet is not called out. If the values of animals are falling, is it worth calling the vet out? At the same time, we know that legislation requires the attendance of the veterinary profession for TB and brucella testing for export certification and so forth. The vets on a farm are the first to pick up the presence of disease. The noble Baroness mentioned the example of BSE. It is obvious that the proposed animal health and welfare strategy and the veterinary surveillance strategy will require more vets on the farm if the strategies are to work at all. If the State Veterinary Service is to be effective it needs sufficient skilled, experienced, local veterinary inspectors—or vets on the ground. If, God forbid, there were another outbreak of foot and mouth disease, have the Government calculated how many vets would be required compared with the present number of vets, or would we have to import vets as we did last time?
	The noble Baroness also referred to a further issue that is compounding the problem—the possible loss of cross-subsidisation of the cost of farm visits if the rules on prescription-only and veterinary medicines are changed. Where are we on that matter? Sixty-three per cent of practice income in large animal practices is derived from the sale of veterinary medicines. Have the Government calculated the effect on practice incomes if prescription-only drugs are declassified? What is the Government response to the report by the Competition Commission?
	We know that farmers are having to face up to cross-compliance and all that that entails. To take an example, what would be the effect on the demand for veterinary manpower on the ground if farm assurance standards form part of cross-compliance, as they are intended to do and those standards require regular inspections by the farm vet? At the moment, I believe that the inspections are quarterly for the assurance standard for pigs and six monthly in other cases. If all farms are required to meet farm assurance standards as a part of cross-compliance and those standards require the input of vets, do we have enough of them?
	I conclude with a brief mention of NADIS—the National Animal Disease Information Service—which started eight years ago and has grown to 40 veterinary practices, known as sentinel practices, plus the six UK veterinary colleges, throughout the UK. The vets involved record every day all the diseases that they encounter on their farm visits. That information is loaded on to a central database and collated every fortnight. As a result, reports can be provided on a regional or national basis for any given period over the past eight years.
	The NADIS target is to increase the number of sentinel practices to 120—to treble them; to enable reporting vets to be paid at LVI rates, and not the very small fee that they are paid at the moment; and to strengthen case definition in the sample and the quality assurance of the scheme. I believe that Defra has been asked for assistance in the expansion of the scheme. Will my noble friend the Minister say whether help will be forthcoming for that extremely important service? It would provide an excellent means of early warning if diseases developed; if vets all around the country reported a particular disease that had not been seen recently on a farm, something would obviously be happening, and the information could be obtained very quickly.
	As I said at the beginning of my speech, farmers, veterinary surgeons and the Government are facing a very serious situation. I hope that my noble friend the Minister can give us some good news on the matter in his reply.

Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior: My Lords, this House should be grateful to my noble friend for initiating this debate, which is appropriate to the animal health situation in the country.
	I shall not linger on the devastating catastrophes that have beset the livestock industry, many of which we are still recovering from. Those pandemics have changed the face of farming, with many livestock farmers going out of business, or contemplating doing so, or moving to arable farming, and with farmers' sons and daughters being increasingly unwilling to follow their father's footsteps. That has been particularly so in marginal land where life consists of long hours, hard work and poor rewards—where that is the order of the day. That has a direct effect on the veterinary profession, exacerbating an already existing decline in veterinarians' numbers in rural practices.
	The progressive decline in farm livestock makes it increasingly difficult to provide veterinary services—although some veterinarians continue to do so, even though it is uneconomical. One should remember that the veterinary practice is a private endeavour, and possibly only 10 to 12 per cent of veterinary manpower is devoted to large animal rural practice. That is in stark contrast to the situation of some 50 years ago, when I was in veterinary practice—I declare an interest in that respect. Then virtually all veterinary work was with farm animals, and the only dogs that we treated were sheepdogs.
	In addition to treatment of sick livestock and the provision of preventive measures such as vaccination, local veterinary practices were the eyes and ears of the disease situation in local areas. It was the vets who spotted deviations from the normal health situation, reported them and set action in progress to deal with them. Consider the situation now, when many livestock endeavours never see a veterinary surgeon from one year's end to another. Of the 7,000 veterinary practices, some 900 offer cattle work and only 350 of those regularly use the diagnostic services of the veterinary laboratory agencies.
	The situation is very depressing. It means that the surveillance of disease and welfare in the rural farming areas is seriously affected, and serious pathogens, such as West Nile virus, Salmonella newport, and others including foot and mouth, which we have had recently, may not be spotted because a veterinarian is not there.
	Details of the situation have been collected and analysed by a number of bodies. To my mind, one of the most effective investigations was that in the House of Commons report of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee on vets and veterinary services in 2003. There have been others that I shall not mention because of time. What solutions do those various reports propose to safeguard the health and welfare of livestock?
	First and foremost, there is the urgent need to get vets back on to livestock farms in a meaningful way. Contrary to some reports, I do not believe that there is a major disinclination of young vets to go into rural practices. Many young graduates would wish to do so, but there are simply not the jobs available to them. Similarly, the feminisation of the veterinary profession is often stated to be responsible for the decline in large animal veterinary services. I do not concur with that, as, from my experience as dean of the Cambridge Veterinary School, many female graduates would wish to go into large animal practice. Again, however, there are not the jobs available to them.
	Not all is doom and gloom, however. As the noble Lord, Lord Carter, said, there is a private enterprise known as NADIS, in which veterinary practices are doing surveillance on their own. They are doing an excellent job, and I hope that Defra can help them out in their needs and that the Minister will respond positively to that suggestion.
	I understand that the department is about to publish an animal health and welfare strategy, maybe even today. No doubt the Minister will comment on that. It may contain implications that all animal keepers should be vigilant, with good biosecurity measures to maintain high standards of animal health, and have a legal obligation to employ private veterinarians to meet their responsibilities. The Royal Society, in its report on "infectious diseases of livestock", recommended that all keepers of livestock should submit the name of their nominated veterinary surgeon and a health plan approved by that veterinary surgeon.
	Those developments, along with the action that is being taken on the report by the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, on teaching and research in veterinary schools, promises that we shall have an effective service in future. I hope that those various measures will go far in providing answers on a partnership basis to the problems that have been identified in this very short debate.

The Earl of Selborne: My Lords, I start by declaring that I am an honorary associate of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons and an honorary member of the British Veterinary Association. I thank my noble friend Lady Trumpington, as others have, for allowing us this brief opportunity to discuss the problems facing rural veterinary practices.
	My noble friend Lord Soulsby referred to a number of reports, including that of the Royal Society. That report, on infectious diseases and livestock, was one of several reports commissioned after the foot and mouth outbreak. The animal health and welfare strategy being announced today will in part respond to some of the proposals made from a scientific standpoint on how the United Kingdom might prevent and combat further invasions of highly infectious livestock diseases.
	The report, prepared under the chairmanship of Sir Brian Follett, gave some very important advice on how, at the working level, farmers and veterinarians need to be more aware of the risks and more familiar with the symptoms of rarely encountered diseases. It notes that effective surveillance depends on close collaboration between farmers and their veterinarians and between them and the State Veterinary Service—now, I understand, to become a Next Steps agency. It suggests that farm animal disease surveillance needs to be strengthened. Defra has sponsored a new veterinary service strategy.
	A major issue is our poor understanding of how highly infectious diseases are spread locally. This is something to which the rural veterinary practitioner can make a great contribution on the research side. The Royal Society report argued that a targeted research initiative, with the clear aim of improving standards of biosecurity at the farm level, should be put in place.
	It must be accepted that heightened animal disease surveillance on farms can be achieved only through effective interaction between vets and farmers. It is the vet who is the first to pick up an observation, perhaps a casual remark from the farmer about an animal that is behaving in an unexpected way or about something that is a little unusual. It is that insight that sometimes can be shared with other vets in the field. It is that which sometimes gives us the opportunity to spot a new infection, perhaps even a new infectious epidemic, such as BSE or foot and mouth.
	Both the noble Lord, Lord Carter, and my noble friend Lord Soulsby referred to the National Animal Disease Information Service, which I visited a week or so ago at Newbury. It is an excellent example in the spirit of the Royal Society report. As we have heard, 40 veterinarians, together with the six veterinary colleges, have hands-on sharing of information, which is pushed out to rural veterinary practices through monthly communications. Every time each of the 40 vets goes on a farm he records what he comes across and gives information that can be entered into a central databank. So I join the noble Lord, Lord Carter, and my noble friend Lord Soulsby in saying that this seems to be an extremely appropriate hands-on initiative, sponsored by two commercial companies, dairy farmers, through the Milk Development Council, and the MLC. There is room for more sponsorship and perhaps the Next Steps agency, or Defra, might consider whether it should join in sponsoring it. It would be good value for money.
	I am not entirely clear about how Defra sees the National Animal Disease Information Service fitting into the wider national surveillance strategy. It would be very helpful to hear how the Minister sees the role of NADIS.

Lord Plumb: My Lords, I join with noble friends, all noble friends I think, in congratulating my noble friend Lady Trumpington on raising this question. It is very timely. Indeed, it is overdue. It is extremely important, for many of the reasons that have already been given.
	We should remind ourselves that the Government have stated, and are on record to have said, that vets have a key role to play in implementing their strategies on veterinary surveillance, animal health and welfare. As we recognise, between livestock farmers and the veterinary profession this country has a very proud record of achievement. I speak from experience as a farmer, a member of the BVA and an honorary associate of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons. The profession has led us from science to practice through the ages.
	But the days of the life of James Herriot as seen on television are over. It is time to move forward on all matters of animal health in today's circumstances. Of course, we recognise that change is the law of life. Recent events, emanating from the various crises that have already been referred to—foot and mouth and BSE, the on-going problem of TB and the reform of the CAP—have accelerated the speed of change. As we have already heard—the noble Lord, Lord Carter, made particular reference to it—the availability of vets and veterinary services is extremely worrying. The conclusion of the Commons committee report of last October, which we have all read and referred to, highlights those concerns, which are due partly to the structural change that is taking place in farming but mainly to the economic climate of British agriculture.
	I hope that the Minister can tell us very clearly why there has been so much delay when the Government know full well that animal welfare and welfare strategy require a greater on-farm presence of veterinary surgeons. The State Veterinary Service and private practice have always worked extremely well together—I have experience of it—particularly in times of crisis. But if, for example, we had another foot and mouth outbreak— which is always possible due to lax import regulations—does the Minister believe that the profession could cope, particularly if we were to start a scheme of vaccination?
	In today's world, no one can expect to persuade veterinarians to concentrate on farm animals alone when there is a large demand for service, particularly for domestic pets. Consultation documents and working groups do not provide solutions. Action is needed. Surely, encouragement through training, to make veterinary careers in farm animal practice more attractive, is necessary and the delay in answering Select Committees only adds to frustration. Does the Minister agree that perhaps the time has come to review a scheme in which I was very much involved many years ago? Believing that prevention is better than cure, it required a visit from veterinarians, a sort of Denplan, to advise the stock farmer on matters of health and welfare. It would, of course, be voluntary but it needs government support.
	Finally, in her opening remarks my noble friend Lady Trumpington referred to the perilous state of agriculture in recent years and posed one of the most important issues for the veterinary profession, the concern regarding the supply of prescription-only medicines following the competition commission inquiry. It would boost the morale of the profession if the Minister would acknowledge the serious consequences to the health and welfare of animals and would satisfy veterinarians by making a full economic impact assessment, recognising the responsibility that they take when diagnosing, prescribing and dispensing veterinary medicines.
	We know that veterinary work is a 24-hour service. The present situation is totally unsustainable in economic terms and is exacerbated by many of the regulations, not least the Working Time Regulations, which make life even more difficult for veterinarians and all concerned in the business of veterinary work.

Lord Livsey of Talgarth: My Lords, I, too, declare an interest as an associate of the British Veterinary Association. I would like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, for introducing this very important debate this afternoon.
	Last summer, I made a train journey through Texas for the first time and I was appalled to see dead cattle lying by the side of the track. I had never seen that before but, the way we are going in this country as far as the numbers of vets are concerned, we might possibly get to the situation of seeing it here in my lifetime. I do not think EU regulations would allow it. I must say that I was appalled at what I saw.
	I have worked closely with vets all through my life on farms and also in colleges and I have a fairly acute understanding of the difficulties they have in operating. What appals me at the moment is that quite a number of private veterinary practices are closing down. That seems to be an extraordinary state of affairs. In the 1980s, I was driven to distraction when serious proposals were put forward to close the University of Glasgow Faculty of Veterinary Medicine and the University of Cambridge Veterinary School. Fortunately, both were saved by a massive campaign. Many veterinary practices do not think it profitable to treat large animals. As noble Lords said, because of cost, many farmers are doing their own veterinary work.
	Inadequate numbers of young men are going into veterinary practice; indeed, girls now comprise some 73 per cent of UK students going to veterinary schools. There is nothing wrong with that—there are many able young girl veterinarians—but the large animal practices are consequently often understaffed. Another extraordinary statistic is that 50 per cent of students at UK veterinary schools—which have very high entry standards—are from overseas. Some EU countries have more veterinary schools than we do. Every Spanish region, for example, has a veterinary school.
	Especially in the light of the pandemics that noble Lords mentioned, the current career structure and run-down of the State Veterinary Service—attempts are being made to put it right, but the number of state vets has halved—is a very serious matter. The number of state vets has decreased from about 620 to 310, although I gather more are coming on board.
	Rural veterinary practices should have a number of aims. They need to have able, qualified and younger vets who are prepared to turn their hand to anything. The practices need to be financially viable and have vets with all-round ability in treating both large and small animals. Veterinary practices are a crucial part of the rural infrastructure. They are vital to animal health.
	The next time we have a foot and mouth outbreak, there may not be enough retired vets around to help out with their knowledge and experience in snuffing out these terrible diseases. Like the noble Lord, Lord Plumb, I believe animal health should be monitored continuously. As he said, all livestock farmers could strike contracts with vets. The farmers could then have an annual programme of affordable animal testing and health checks. Not only would that benefit farm animals; as the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, said, it would ensure proper monitoring of disease spread. It could be picked up in the early stages and serve as an early-warning system.
	The incidence of vets' visits to cattle has decreased from 14 per cent in 1998 to 7.5 per cent in 2002. The incidence of visits to sheep has decreased from 4 per cent to 1.3 per cent. The British Veterinary Association has identified a number of critical factors in the decreasing use of vets to treat large farm animals. First, the animals' value has decreased. Secondly, in some cases, animal numbers have decreased. Thirdly, farming profitability has decreased. The combination has led to a situation in which it costs more to ring up the local vet, who often has to travel the distances that noble Lords have mentioned, than the animal is worth. It is a very serious situation.
	I sincerely hope that the Minister will have good news for us, especially in relation to the EFRACOM report.

Baroness Byford: My Lords, I, too, thank my noble friend for securing this debate on the future of rural vets and congratulate her on her timing. I believe that the strategy is being launched at Nobel House at this very moment. I hope that many of the issues raised in this debate are recognised in the strategy. Without a sufficient supply of qualified and experienced vets across the country, I fear that animal disease could again threaten rural livelihoods.
	Like other noble Lords I should declare an interest as an honorary associate member of the BVA—there are not many of us not declaring that interest this afternoon—and also remind the House of our family farming interest, although we are now without livestock.
	As other noble Lords said, the number of vets working with large animals is declining. The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons manpower survey of 2002 found that the number of full-time vets working with farm animals had decreased by 29 per cent between 1998 and 2002. I think I am the third speaker to refer to those figures. I hope that that underlines our concern.
	My noble friend Lord Soulsby reflected on the fact that so many farms have not been making money and that that is one of the good reasons why vets are not called out unless it really is an emergency. Will the Minister confirm that, in the past year, there has been a reduction in the number of State Veterinary Service vets as well?
	Like other noble Lords, I understand that 80 per cent of vets in training are women. That is good news. Consequently, however, the profession has a problem. It will have to cope with career breaks, a possibly lower investment capability and a further decline in the number of those going into large animal practices.
	As many vets leave university with debts of between £20,000 and £30,000, they are naturally attracted to work in urban areas where they work mainly in small animal practices. They question the wisdom of working and investing in rural practices when the future of livestock farming is so uncertain. Have the Government considered the possibility of paying a proportion of those university fees in return for a commitment to work in a rural practice for a few years when they qualify? Have they considered, for example, giving rate relief to veterinary practices based in rural areas?
	My noble friend Lord Soulsby talked about the lack of opportunity for newly qualified vets to gain experience working with large farm animals. I hope that some of my suggestions might help in that regard. My noble friend Lord Selborne referred to the work of the Royal Society which clearly highlighted the risks and symptoms of disease and the need to share information on a central database.
	On 11 April the Competition Commission produced an 800-page report on the possible monopoly in the supply of prescription-only veterinary medicines. The OFT picked that up and went out to consultation. The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons met the 16 May 2003 deadline. The OFT reported to the DTI, since when, despite repeated calls, there has been no outcome. Does the Minister accept that that is totally unacceptable and a total shambles?
	Has the Minister received the BVA's recent survey showing that 63 per cent of the income of large family practices is derived from veterinary medicines, compared with only 38 per cent for small ones? The profession has a tradition of cross subsidy. Ending that practice will mean a spiral of increased veterinary fees, fewer farm visits, lower vet incomes and further falls in vet numbers and a consequent worsening of animal health standards. What is the Government's response to this dilemma?
	The situation will be even more serious if the decrease in large farm numbers and the increase in the number of hobby holdings continue. Will the Minister comment on that? Furthermore, smaller holdings are without the traditional support of large family practices. It is not really reasonable to expect farmers to pay the sorts of prices that may result if service provision is severed from the supply of medicine. Even without that separation, in 2003, the State Veterinary Service found that 1,341 out of 4,964 farms failed to meet the statutory standards. So we recognise that there is work to do.
	Finally, I refer to the question asked by my noble friend Lady Trumpington: who will pay for this new strategy to get more vets on to farms? How will that happen if vets have to compete with supermarkets in the dispensing of medicines that the former have traditionally carried out?
	The noble Lord, Lord Carter, referred to the very important issue of cross compliance and the linking of that to more farm visits. But who would pay for that? It is certainly not clear.
	How does the Minister reconcile the situation highlighted by noble Lords with the statement in the Animal Health and Welfare Strategy that the veterinary profession, the stakeholders and the Government are working to ensure that vets are equipped to play a full and fundamental role in disease control and prevention? We await answers to that question.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, for initiating this debate. It is clearly an important issue in terms of the support that the farming industry receives from the veterinary service and in terms of the quality and welfare of our farm animals.
	Concerns have been expressed in this House and by members of the professions and, indeed, by the agriculture sector itself. I shall begin by attempting to remove a couple of partial misconceptions. Of course it is true that there has been a decline in the number of farms. That will doubtless continue. There has been much less of a decline in the number of farm animals due to mergers of flocks and herds. Although that may continue, it is not anywhere near as drastic as is sometimes claimed in terms of the restriction of demand on the veterinary service.
	As we are all aware, farming has gone through a very difficult time economically. Certainly, three years ago when I was appointed to this post, farming was at its absolute nadir. There has been a significant recovery in farm incomes in most although not all sectors. The demand on farm vets reflects the state and structure of the industry, the number of enterprises operating in the industry, the number of animals in it and the profitability of the industry. In that sense things are not moving quite so drastically against the interests of the veterinary profession as was perhaps implied.
	I shall come back to my next point, but there is no shortage of vets in this country. People are entering the veterinary schools. Nor is there any shortage among those entering the profession of people who desire to work with large animals. That applies to both male and female students. In saying that, I hope that I have removed a misconception that I believe was implied. Indeed, the elective parts of veterinary courses concerned with large animals are, if anything, oversubscribed. On graduation, many students do wish to enter large farm practices. I refer not to the attitude of students themselves or of those entering the profession, but to the structure of the profession, the rewards that it offers to some extent and to the question of location.
	The noble Baronesses, Lady Trumpington and Lady Byford, the noble Lord, Lord Plumb, and perhaps others indicated that they were concerned about the delay in our response to the Select Committee report of another place. We have yet to respond to that report. The response will be given in full before the Summer Recess. We sought the agreement of the Select Committee and of colleagues and interested groups to delay the Government's response while we set in train work with the veterinary profession looking into the many issues which the report raised. As a result, we have carried out some useful work with the professions culminating, as was said, in the issuing today of the Animal Health and Welfare Strategy. Work is also under way on the action plan for veterinary support. That will probably be issued with the final response to the Select Committee report. As I say, we delayed the response to the report with the agreement of the Select Committee and of the professions.
	Looking at the economics of the situation, it is clear that there is no lack of vets. It is clear also that the issue concerns how we attract and keep vets in large farm practices and the structure of rural veterinary practices. Students and incomers want to move into that area. There is increased recognition and awareness among the agriculture industry as a whole of the need to work closely with vets in order to achieve higher standards of welfare and biosecurity and to minimise potential costs arising from disease and welfare problems. We have built on that understanding with the agriculture and veterinary professions. The outline strategy that we produced last summer set up a working group with the veterinary profession to address some of the issues raised by the Select Committee and the professions.
	As the noble Lord, Lord Plumb, said, prevention is better than cure. Vets have a major role in prevention. It is one of the main strategic pillars of the Animal Health and Welfare Strategy. The Government are making a significant effort in that area and in farm health planning so that under the strategy and the forthcoming action plan we develop a way in which vets get on to farms and work in partnership with farmers and animal keepers on a long-term basis. We shall ensure a planned approach to animal welfare in the whole of the livestock sector.
	I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby, asked whether there would be a legal obligation on farmers to use or register with a vet. We do not state that in the strategy. Making that a new regulation may be to go a little far, but on the other hand it might make it clear that animal owners have responsibilities, which include the responsibility of ensuring that they get professional advice for the welfare and health of their animals. It is a question of the balance of incentives and sanctions that are needed where they fail to do that. I believe that to go an inch further in that direction might work. We are looking at that area.
	The noble Lord, Lord Livsey, referred to my next point and to the affordability of vets. The affordability in part reflects the general profitability of the industry but also the structure of payments to the veterinary profession. For the farmer there is almost always a return on having good veterinary cover at the present rate of fees, and probably with a significantly higher rate of fees. However, that is not always obvious in terms of the other pressures to which farm incomes may be subjected. Given the diminishing number of individual practices, it is important that we provide a system whereby farmers can call on vets 24 hours a day, seven days a week and 365 days a year, and develop a greater tendency for veterinary practices to co-operate among themselves, as suppliers of a health service, to provide that cover. There has been a tradition of viewing practices as competitive rather than as collaborative. We need to address that problem.
	The noble Lord, Lord Livsey, referred to the State Veterinary Service. The State Veterinary Service is about to change its status to become a first steps agency, as the noble Lord said. That will focus very much on delivery and moving it out of the core of the department so that it will be able to provide a better service within rural areas. The noble Lord mentioned figures that I am sure are completely wrong. On previous occasions I have explained the apparent decline in the figures with regard to the State Veterinary Service over the long term in that some vets have moved out to the veterinary lab and some have moved out to the Meat Hygiene Service. I shall write the relevant letter again—although the noble Lord will no doubt find a copy in his files from two years ago—explaining how the apparent decline in terms of field offices is not the case in reality. There has been a very slight decline and some unfilled posts have arisen over the past year, to answer the noble Baroness's question.

Lord Livsey of Talgarth: My Lords, I am merely repeating an answer that, when I was a Member of another place, I received from MAFF.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, in relation to the noble Lord's intervention two years ago, I tried to explain that part of the decline was a transfer out of the State Veterinary Service into the Meat Hygiene Service when we set up the FSA, and part of it was due to the previous classification of researchers. Not all the decline is covered by that, I agree, but he used a figure of 600 state vets compared to just under 300 now. A large part of that is explained by the institutional changes; that is the only point I make. The change in status and focus of the SVS will also help.
	A number of noble Lords were concerned about what would happen if—God forbid—we had another outbreak along the lines of that of foot and mouth in 2001. We are much better prepared for such an outbreak than we were then, and have improved our emergency preparedness. Some noble Lords will be very familiar with the contingency plans that we have issued and worked on recently. Parts of those ensure that vets who will have identified themselves previously—they will include some retired vets, but will mainly be privately practising vets—will be able to come in immediately to help. It will be a sort of territorial army of vets, as picked up from the report from Sir Brian Follett and Iain Anderson on the outbreak.
	We also have to answer the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Carter, about needing to bring in some private vets from abroad. We have already made arrangements with English-speaking countries and our EU partners to ensure that we can get—

Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the Minister, but did I mishear him? Earlier, I thought that he said that there was no trouble in getting graduates to go into larger-animal practices. If that is what he said, it totally disagrees with the letter that I read out from the senior partner of a veterinary practice.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, there is no problem with getting new graduates to indicate that they wish to go into large farm practices. However, the number of opportunities for them has diminished because of the structural change in the number of large farm practices, to which the noble Baroness referred. It is also true that the attractiveness of the small-animal sector becomes greater as the career goes on. At the point at which veterinary students graduate, a lot of them still want very much, by preference, to go into large-animal practices. That is the position that we have established in our discussions with the profession and the training institutions, and with graduates themselves.
	Noble Lords also referred to the issues relating to the Competition Commission and various other measures on prescriptions. There has clearly been a lack of transparency in veterinary charging over the ages. There is a very substantial element of cross-subsidy—of income from medicine prescription into covering the cost for the actual visits and veterinary services. The Competition Commission and general competition policy does not like that sort of thing. In general, it thinks that charging should be transparent. That seems a generally important principle, so one might accept it. We are looking, however, at the economic implications. The obvious one is that, although the costs of medicines may come down, the charges for visits and other services may go up. We are therefore in continuing discussion with the industry and the profession to see how we follow through what has happened on the competition side.
	My noble friend Lord Carter, the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby, and others referred to NADIS—the National Animal Disease Information Service—and the help Defra can give to it. Our officials have been engaged in quite lengthy discussions with it on how we can expand that service. We are looking at that now and expect the final report to come out by the end of July. Defra has put in some money to ensure that we look at how we can generalise some of the lessons from that.
	My noble friend Lord Carter also raised the issue of cross-compliance, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, also referred. That is part of the European prescription of the conditions for the single farm payment, which will relate to cross-compliance in animal welfare regulation. That applies from 2006 and 2007; it does not come in absolutely immediately. It will be a condition of receiving the single farm payment that those minimum European standards are met. Of itself, that will not cause an additional inspection activity—some people are worried about that—but it means that the existing law will have to be observed, so far as treatment of animals is concerned and care for their health and welfare, if people are to receive payment.
	I have answered a number of the questions. There may well be others, but we are running out of time.

Baroness Byford: My Lords, I have a very quick question on cross-compliance, which both the noble Lord, Lord Carter, and I mentioned. If it will be part of the scheme, which we accept, is the Minister confident that there will be vets there to carry it out? That is the question that has been raised.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, as the noble Baroness knows, the requirement under the inspection is that 1 per cent of farms will be inspected every year. In terms of checking on one's entitlement to cross-compliance, a considerably higher number of farms are inspected for veterinary purposes in random or intelligence-led checks. I do not therefore expect a significant increase in the load on the State Veterinary Service as a result of that. If problems arise, we will clearly have to take them into account.
	My thanks to everyone engaged in the debate. I shall check on other questions and reply in writing.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 3.10 p.m.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	[The Sitting was suspended from 3.7 to 3.10 p.m.]

Civil Partnership Bill

Consideration of amendments on Report resumed on Clause 1.

Lord Tebbit: moved Amendment No. 4:
	Page 1, line 4, leave out "of the same sex"

Lord Tebbit: My Lords, in moving the amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 11. These are simple amendments to remove the blatant sexual discrimination inherent in the Bill by removing the words "of the same sex". The argument is clear and simple—the Bill is discriminatory in its nature and will almost certainly suffer a legal challenge sooner or later. I offer these amendments in a spirit of helpfulness to the Government to get them out of a future problem. I beg to move.

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, at an early stage I indicated in Grand Committee that while I had sympathy with the object of the amendment if it was that stated by the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit—namely, to seek justice for heterosexual couples who are excluded from the Bill; that is why the Bill dealt with that matter originally—I was persuaded that this is not a Bill in which that should be sought. I shall explain why.
	The matter is well put by the Solicitors' Family Law Association, which is a distinguished body of over 5,000 family lawyers, in its briefing for today's debate. Not only does it explain why the amendment that has just been carried was in its view most ill-considered, but it also explained that heterosexual couples should not be eligible to register as civil partners. They already have available to them the legal equivalent of civil partnership—namely, civil marriage—and by getting married the same legal rights and responsibilities are given to lesbian and gay couples who register a civil partnership. That is the first and unanswerable point.
	Importantly, this authoritative body goes on to say:
	"The broader and more complex problems faced by unmarried heterosexual couples relate to the increasing numbers who live together outside marriage. Many wrongly believe they have the same legal rights as married couples—a recent social attitudes survey found that 56 per cent of those questioned were unaware of the legal distinction between married and unmarried couples. In our role as legal advisers we have found that people's frequent reliance on the misconception of the 'common law marriage' makes them extremely vulnerable when the relationship ends, particularly women with children. A public information campaign alone will not address this problem. Urgent reform is needed to the law on cohabitation, but this should be dealt with by separate legislation".
	The association continues:
	"We welcome the commitment made by Lord Filkin to consider legislative reform and ask the Law Commission to re-examine the issues. The SFLA has developed proposals for a separate new law which would provide safety net protection for cohabitants made vulnerable at the breakdown of a relationship. With colleagues at the Law Society we have drafted a Cohabitation Bill which we hope can form the basis for further reform. We look forward to discussing it with Ministers and will make it available to the Law Commission. This should be the Government's next stage of reform, to follow the enactment of the Civil Partnership Bill".
	It then outlines what it has in mind.
	I never know whether the House is at its best or its worst when strong, emotional and psychological forces act upon us. I never know whether reason or information make the slightest difference to the verdict of the jury that is this House. But if information and reason have any relevance to this debate, I hope that noble Lords think that those points, made by an independent body of family lawyers—not by politicians—would explain why this amendment is, with respect, ill founded.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, in view of the changed nature of civil partnership following the amendment passed earlier—although I agree with what the noble Lord has just said and we would have adopted those views—the Government find themselves unable to contribute to the amendment at this stage, except that we oppose it.
	The decision that the House has just made amending Clause 1 fundamentally alters the basis upon which the Government have brought forward the whole Bill and on which they have consulted widely before doing so. In those circumstances the Government feel unable to proceed with any of their amendments previously tabled and to contribute to the debate on other amendments, except to indicate that we oppose them.
	I thought it was right that your Lordships should know that that is the course that we intend to take in relation to every amendment that will now follow.

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, on behalf of these Benches, we entirely agree with that view. We regard what has happened as a torpedoing of the Bill in the guise of noble motives. Personally, I am most disappointed, since it was my Private Member's Bill that began the matter in this House and the only proper course is to bring it before the democratic Chamber as soon as possible.

Lord Henley: My Lords, that is the most extraordinary statement that I have ever heard from the Government Front Bench in all the years that I have seen Bills pass through this House. The Government have lost one amendment, which has changed their Bill. They have every opportunity to put that amendment to another place, should they wish to change it, because the Bill will go to another place in due course. They are effectively seeking not to take the Bill any further.

Noble Lords: No.

Lord Henley: My Lords, the Government have said that they will not now bring forward any of the amendments that they have tabled. There is a large number of those and some of us have objected to the number of them, as we did in Committee. Can the noble Baroness tell us a little more about the Government's thinking. Why, on this occasion, do they intend not to do anything further?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I shall first deal with the issue of amendments. At Second Reading we made it clear that in order to make the Bill consistent we would have to table a number of technical amendments. Those amendments were predicated on the understanding that "civil partnerships" referred to relationships between same sex couples of either gender and to no other groups. The consequences of the amendment that your Lordships have just passed mean that that term—that definition—no longer applies. A "civil partnership" would now refer to a group of people considerably greater than single-sex relationships—mothers, children, fathers, grandparents and a whole series of other relationships.
	Bearing that in mind and knowing that in each and every instance where we will now consider civil partnerships within that context we do not feel that we can helpfully explore the amendments, except to say that we oppose them and that we hope that the Bill will go speedily through this House so that it can go to another place.

Lord Henley: My Lords, with the leave of the House—I appreciate that we are on Report—we do not know what another place might do. Obviously, there is a free vote there for both the major parties, although not for the Liberal Democrat party. Another place might decide to reverse our decision.
	The Government have tabled a large number of amendments which it is right should be considered at some point. Should another place reverse our amendment, is the noble Baroness saying that we will not have adequate opportunity to discuss the vast array of amendments she has put before us today and the 130 pages of amendments which were discussed in Grand Committee?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I have made it plain that all the amendments which we seek to bring forward will be predicated on the definition of same-sex couples entering into the partnerships, not any other definition. All our amendments were predicated on that basis. It would be impossible for those amendments to be reconfigured in order to reflect the new construct which must be put on civil partnerships as a result of the amendment your Lordships have just passed.
	I am sure that noble Lords opposite understood the consequence of what they did because I cannot imagine that it would have been done without them fully understanding that it would fundamentally alter the whole nature of the Bill—the whole nature of the Bill.
	We wish the Bill to be speedy in its transit through this House so that it can be properly considered. It was a matter for noble Lords to take the view and approach that they did and the consequences that flow from that. We now face those consequences.

Lord Higgins: My Lords, it is difficult on Report to sort out a confusion of this kind because one is supposed to speak only once. However, perhaps I may pose one or two questions to the noble Baroness. She said that the Government do not propose to move the government amendments. However, a considerable number of amendments on the Marshalled List are not necessarily affected by what has happened and it would seem sensible to progress with them. Indeed, on Amendment No. 7, which I hope to move later, it may be possible to clarify many of the consequences of what has happened.
	Secondly, if the Government simply intend to sit on their hands at this stage, intend that the Bill will then go to the Commons where the amendment will be reversed and then come back here, what will be the procedure for considering the Bill further? We cannot do so simply on a rejection of an amendment by the Commons. That would be quite inappropriate. The Bill would be in an even bigger mess than it is now.
	We need to know. It is all very well standing up and saying, "Oh, well, we don't propose to move our amendments". We need to know what the procedure is which the Government propose and, in particular, whether there is any precedent whatever for a Government making the kind of statement that the noble Baroness has just made.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, as a consequence of what the House did, the House chose not to scrutinise those issues because it fundamentally disagreed with the Government's view that civil partnerships should be restricted to same-sex relationships. The consequence which flows is that of course noble Lords can table any amendments they choose. They will be debated and the Government will participate to the extent they feel able. I have indicated, as a matter of convenience for the House, that we will not involve ourselves in the details of the debate but say simply that we will oppose the amendments.
	We are not seeking to deny the House the proper opportunity to scrutinise. The House has chosen to act in the way that it has. That means that in relation to certain matters the House has lost the right to scrutinise. That is our right. Noble Lords went through the Lobbies and voted on that basis. Now we have the consequences. It is a matter which has not been of the Government's making.

Lord Higgins: My Lords, with the leave of the House—it is difficult on Report to try to sort out the problem—can the noble Baroness comment on the second point I raised? How do the Government now propose that the Bill will proceed? Does she propose that it will go to Third Reading or does she have some other procedure in mind? If the Government do not move any of their amendments and the Bill goes through totally unamended to another place, it will not be satisfactory for the other place simply to reverse our amendment and then for the Bill to return here merely on that reversal. We would need to have a completely new arrangement to cover the return of our amendment if, as seems likely, the Government succeed in reversing it. We need some view from the Government, either from the Chief Whip or otherwise, on the procedure which we will now follow.

Lord Grocott: My Lords, the procedure is absolutely and precisely as it always is; that is, the Bill goes through Report stage and Third Reading and then proceeds to the Commons. It is a Lords starter so it will go through all its stages in the Commons where the Government will put forward whatever amendments they want to put forward. The Bill will then return here and we shall deal with Lords consideration of Commons amendments in the normal way. The effect of our earlier vote, without wishing to be repetitive, has a knock-on effect on virtually everything on the Marshalled List for consideration today.
	The Bill will proceed in the normal way; that is, any Member of the House can move the amendment down in his name; they can be debated and the Government will give whatever response they feel appropriate. We have indicated that it might be minimal in view of the decision made earlier today. The short, simple and precisely accurate answer is to say that the Bill will continue to be considered in exactly the same as any other Bill.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, can he tell the House exactly what we are discussing at the present time? I understand that an amendment has been moved and spoken to and the Minister has wound up. According to the rules, that should be the end of the matter.
	If we are going to have a discussion about procedure, many of us will want to take part in it. That is why I ask the Chief Whip for clarification of the present position.

Lord Grocott: My Lords, we have moved seamlessly into a procedural discussion from a discussion on an amendment. I suspect that the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, who was a long-standing and, perhaps I may say, tough Whip in the other place, knows that perfectly well. I strongly suggest to the House that we proceed precisely in the old familiar track in the old familiar way. We should put forward amendments for discussion, move them or not, withdraw them or not and vote on them or not. Why do we not get on with the business?

Lord Higgins: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I am trying to be helpful. I do not understand what the Government Chief Whip is saying. He is saying that the Bill will go through the normal procedures in this House, then go to another place where the amendment we have just carried is likely to be reversed and then return to us here. However, I am not clear how we in this House can possibly discuss the detail of the Bill simply on a government amendment to an amendment we have carried in this House. As I understand it, there is not the scope to discuss all these issues.

Lord Grocott: My Lords, I need to remind the House—this is a point on which I feel strongly—that the Bill is a Lords starter, as was the Constitutional Reform Bill. Both were strongly argued for by my noble friend the Leader of the House and myself as being desirable to be Lords starters. It is important that this House has important Bills to consider first and foremost.
	I shall confine my remarks to this Bill and not include the Constitutional Reform Bill. If a fundamental change has been made in this House to the nature and substance of a Bill, as in this case, clearly, the sooner we can get it to the other House which can consider it properly in the normal way—not considering Lords amendments but considering it through all its stages—the better. Frankly, I cannot see the problem or the difficulty in the Bill coming back here with a series of Commons amendments for us to consider in the normal way. As the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, suggested, it is possible that the process will take longer. I fully understand that, but it seems to me that the procedure is simple.

Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, perhaps I may respectfully suggest—I do not move—that the House adjourns for a few moments to try to resolve this problem. It is wholly unacceptable that we should continue on the basis which the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, has, with the best intentions, set out. He had to say what he said because of the procedures to be followed. But I suggest, without moving, that the House should adjourn for a short time to see whether some accommodation can be made.

Lord Grocott: My Lords, I really do think that that would waste everyone's time. We need to proceed with this Bill. No change in procedure or normal practice is being suggested. The vast majority of amendments that come before this House are not put to a vote. Quite frequently, amendments which appear on the Marshalled List are not moved. That is precisely and exactly where we are at the moment. Numerically the balance may be a little different and it is possible that rather more amendments may not be moved than is normally the case, but I do not think that anyone in the House does not understand or appreciate that. The sooner we get on with the business of this very important Lords starter, which we want to continue discussing, the better. We should get on with it and complete the various stages of the Bill without having an extended debate which, I suggest, is unnecessary.

Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, it seems to those of us who have listened to this procedural debate for only the past few minutes that the Government have had a collective fit of pique about a decision taken by the House a couple of hours ago to include an amendment against the Government's wishes. On the back of that, the Government are now saying that the amendments that they had proposed, and had wholly intended to move in order to clarify various aspects of the Bill, will now not be moved. That is my understanding of the situation, and I understand that the Bill will now go to the Commons.
	Can the Government Chief Whip tell us what will happen to the amendments on the Marshalled List which, I understand from our Front Bench, were all agreed? They were helpful and explanatory amendments and they should be proceeded with. My further understanding is that the Division won earlier does not affect those amendments and does not affect fundamentally the substance of the Bill. If the Government wish to behave in what appears to me to be an extremely churlish fashion, they will suffer the consequences.

Lord Grocott: My Lords, I shall try once more, probably in vain, to close down this discussion and move on. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, that, far from suffering from a fit of pique or anything else, the only anxiety and stress that I feel in this situation relates to ensuring that we finish the debate before the match starts tonight.
	I strongly suggest that this situation is no different from any other, except for the fact that the effect of the amendment that was carried is to redefine a fundamental part of the Bill, and that affects virtually all the other amendments that are to be considered. Is there really anything else that we can find to say? I cannot think of anything.

Lord Tebbit: My Lords, perhaps I may speak now. In fact, I think that I am the only person who should be heard under the procedures of the House, and I have behaved with great restraint during this discussion. As I understand it, the Government do not like the amendment, they will keep secret from the House their reasons for not liking it, and they would be obliged if we would just get on and talk to a blank wall. I confess that I do not find that a very satisfactory arrangement.
	However, if I may say so, I believe that behind that approach is the fact that there must have been a panicky telephone call from the Treasury. That is at the heart of it. The noble Baronesses opposite say, "No, no. The Treasury? Good gracious me. The Treasury? It would not be the Treasury's concern". The amendment has done nothing to attack the principle of the Bill. All those who would have benefited under the Bill as it was introduced essentially remain to benefit. The earlier vote on the amendment of my noble friend Lady O'Cathain has done nothing to detract in any single way from the privileges or rights which the Bill would extend to certain groups of people. That vote has meant that another group or two of people have been made beneficiaries.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, looks astonished. I thought that she got hold of that idea earlier today. Most of us did, and that is why we voted for my noble friend's amendment. We wanted to benefit another group of people in order to reduce the inequities which the Bill would have created.
	I can accept that in respect of certain bits and pieces the Government will want to scratch their head—for example, in relation to the provisions on the rules of evidence and the right which was to be extended to civil partners not to testify against each other. The Bill is, in every sense and every detail, a parody or mirror image of civil marriage. I can understand that.
	I could have understood it if the noble Baroness had said that she thought that the House should adjourn early today and that the Report stage would proceed in a week or so after the five departments and however many hundred civil servants involved had gathered together their resources and the bean-counters had totted up the sums and made an estimate for the Chancellor of how much it might cost him in lost revenue if these privileges were extended to other people. Indeed, I could have understood it if the noble Baroness who speaks for the Government on social security had totted up on her calculator how much it would save the Treasury because it is a two-way bet.
	As the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, said this morning, some people might lose if they enter a civil partnership but some might gain. I rather doubt whether people who would lose would be willing to go into a civil partnership, and so the noble Baroness should not worry her head too much about that. But she would want to juggle the figures and we could all understand that.
	As I said earlier when I introduced the amendment— and did so very briefly—I do not want to make life difficult for the Government. However, that seems to have been a long time ago. I just want to be helpful in any way that I can. I am beginning to feel that it would not be appropriate for me to push this matter to a Division at this stage, but we shall have to return to it at Third Reading. Indeed, we may have to find ways of coming back to it when the Bill returns from the Commons.
	But when the Bill reaches the Commons, unless something has changed there, I warn the noble Baroness that a very complex and long Bill such as this will almost certainly be timetabled—that is, guillotined. It is possible that great hunks of it will not be discussed at all in the Commons. Therefore, some of the Government's amendments, which they are now so shy about putting forward, may not be discussed properly.
	I said earlier that in my 30-odd years in Parliament I have never encountered such a monumentally incompetently drafted Bill. Bills which have been in gestation longer than a baby elephant now come forward more than 50 per cent longer because pages have been added by government amendments in the Committee and Report stages. But the Government now say that, because my noble friend has secured the agreement of the House to a comparatively simple amendment, they are going to take their bat and ball home and will not even discuss their own amendments.
	This is a most extraordinary situation. I now sense that most noble Lords would say to this legislation that it will have to go through as ill considered as it was ill drafted. The Government appear not to want to defend their own legislation in this House because the Treasury says that it cannot count the cost again. The noble Baroness wriggles a lot, but she knows full well, as my noble friend Lady O'Cathain explained earlier, that this Bill is essentially a Bill about money. If the Treasury is the problem—I suspect it is—why do not the Government back off and say that no civil partners of any kind will have the advantages of the avoidance of inheritance tax. That would make the situation much easier. I see the lawyers want to try to be helpful.

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, it requires unusual stupidity or courage to interrupt the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, when in full flow. However, as I made the only speech in regard to his amendment, I should like him to reply to the points that I made. He has not replied to a single one.

Lord Tebbit: My Lords, I must confess that I did not believe that the noble Lord had made any points about this amendment. I know I am getting on a bit and tend towards absentmindedness, but I am sure that he would not want to tempt me to speak on an amendment that was not the one that had been moved. I want to be helpful to everyone. I take the view, which is only a little more extreme than the Government's, that we should all go home. With that in mind, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Duke of Montrose: moved Amendment No. 5:
	Page 1, line 6, after "is" insert "only"

The Duke of Montrose: My Lords, this is a fairly brief amendment. If I am not mistaken, it is likely to exclude one group of possible contestants and, to that extent, it might please the Government. The Bill refers on page 1, line 6 to a relationship,
	"which is formed when they register as civil partners".
	The amendment changes that wording to a relationship,
	"which is only formed when they register as civil partners".
	The amendment ensures that the only method of forming a civil partnership will be by registration with the proper authorities. Perhaps it is no secret to your Lordships to find that the amendment was first put forward by the Law Society of Scotland, whose view is that the new statutory arrangements should clearly ensure that there is only one route to establishing a civil partnership. That will reinforce clarity in respect of the new partnership arrangements. Customary routes should not have the capability of emerging over time. The amendment will limit that possibility.
	I can see what is in the back of the Law Society of Scotland's mind. As noble Lords are probably aware, in Scotland one can be treated in law as being married by habit and repute. Therefore, one does not have to go through a particular ceremony. It obviously wanted to clarify the fact that, if we introduce this new contract arrangement, it would not eventually be argued that it could be established by habit and repute. I beg to move.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, we say that there is no need for the insertion of the word "only". It does not add anything to the way in which it can be interpreted. We oppose the amendment.

The Duke of Montrose: My Lords, that does not leave me with much to add at the moment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness O'Cathain: moved Amendment No. 6:
	Page 1, line 9, after "4" insert "(subject to section 253(3))"

Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, this group of amendments would give the Northern Ireland Assembly a say—indeed, the final say—in bringing the Northern Ireland provisions of the Bill into effect. Amendments Nos. 6 and 196 amount to a sunrise clause on Part 4 of the Bill. I am delighted that these amendments have been co-signed by the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, who, as we all acknowledge, is a great authority in this House on the Northern Ireland issue.
	I also have some knowledge of the Province. It is out of concern for the opinions that I know are held by the great majority of the people of Northern Ireland that these amendments have been tabled. It is obvious to everyone, except perhaps to government Ministers, that there is strong opposition to the Bill from people throughout Northern Ireland. That is a view that transcends the tradition of the Catholic/Protestant divide and the political Unionist/nationalist divide.
	What is especially shocking about the Government's decision to impose civil partnerships in the Province is that they are daring to do so while the Assembly is suspended. At the very time when they should be exercising the greatest restraint, it seems that Ministers are desperate to put a highly controversial issue on to the statute book before the Assembly reconvenes. I may be unduly suspicious but it seems to me that the Government see the suspension of the Assembly as a heaven-sent opportunity to impose on the Province legislation that the Assembly and the people of Northern Ireland would never accept. My amendments would give the Assembly the final say.
	The commencement order to bring the Northern Ireland part of the Bill into effect would have to be approved by resolution of the Assembly. Clearly and unhappily, we do not know when the Assembly will be reconvened, but Northern Ireland's politicians should have the chance to debate these measures. That means waiting until the current impasse is resolved and if it does approve the provisions, so be it.
	In the early part of this year, the Government carried out a two-month consultation period in Northern Ireland by comparison with a three-month consultation period in England and Wales. Of the respondents to the Northern Ireland consultation, 86 per cent opposed the plan. The noble Lord, Lord Alli, commented in Grand Committee that he thought that the number of responses was small. In fact, if one compares the number with the responses to the England and Wales consultation, which I notice lasted a month longer, the proportion of the Northern Ireland population who responded was more than four times greater than that in England and Wales.

Lord Alli: My Lords, the noble Baroness may recall that my substantive point on the consultation process was not the small number of responses, but I asked the Minister whether there was evidence of an organised letter-writing campaign. She referred the matter to her department and I believe that the response circulated was that there was indeed evidence of an organised letter-writing campaign to that consultation process, which threw up, I suspect, the result that the noble Baroness is discussing.

Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, with the greatest respect to the noble Lord, Lord Alli—I do respect the noble Lord—was there any evidence of a concentrated letter-writing campaign in England and Wales?

Lord Alli: My Lords, that was not for me to ask. I simply asked about Northern Ireland as that was a substantial issue facing the Grand Committee and appeared to be one of the major building blocks in the argument of the noble Baroness as to why the legislation should not apply to Northern Ireland.

Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, I am afraid that the noble Lord, Lord Alli, has not listened to the main problem that I have with this legislation, which is that it will be railroaded through Northern Ireland at a time when the Assembly is suspended. I do not believe that any Member of your Lordships' House does not recognise how sensitive the suspension of the Assembly is at the moment. We all want the Assembly to be reinstated. We want to see peace in Northern Ireland and we should not introduce legislation that could be difficult at a time when the Assembly is suspended. That is the major plank of my argument. If the noble Lord had listened to me earlier, he would have heard me stress that fact.
	Of course, we do not need government consultation to tell us that the people of Northern Ireland are more conservative and more religious than those on the mainland. I suspect that that is one of the reasons why there was such overwhelming feeling against the Bill. In the England and Wales consultation process, 83 per cent of the people were in favour of the Bill. At the time, government Ministers trumpeted that to the press and said that it reflected "overwhelming public support". When the Northern Ireland consultation showed 86 per cent opposition to the Bill, suddenly public opinion became irrelevant to the Government. No government Ministers trumpeted that fact.
	The recent census shows that there were only 288 same-sex couple households in Northern Ireland. If the Government are right that only 5 per cent of same-sex couples will avail themselves of civil partnerships, Ministers want to railroad the Bill through the Assembly to change the whole of family law in the Province for the sake of 15 same-sex couples.
	I firmly believe that the people of Northern Ireland are entitled to their views; they are entitled to be listened to by the Government. At the moment they have no means of expressing their views to the Assembly about this highly controversial issue. Surely that is undemocratic, unfair and unjust.
	The Government may resent the fact that most politicians in the Province do not support gay rights, but if they believe in devolved government they must accept the views of that devolved government. The Scottish Parliament had the opportunity to debate these provisions when it passed a Sewel Motion on 3 June. Northern Ireland's politicians should be given the same opportunity. I beg to move.

Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, the Bill is not about economics, whatever anyone may say, it is about human rights and justice. Gay people in Northern Ireland suffer more than usual from prejudice. They are as entitled as anyone else in what is still a United Kingdom to have their human rights protected.
	I hear from the Northern Ireland Gay Rights Association that it would feel extremely bitter if such people were to be excluded from a Bill which would acknowledge that there were and should be particular human rights in the rest of the United Kingdom and they were denied them.

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, this issue caused a great deal of heat and perhaps not very much light in Grand Committee. We take the view that this Parliament is now responsible for the government of Northern Ireland because the Assembly has been suspended. In that case we have to take the decision whether these rights should be extended to people who live in Northern Ireland in the same way as they are extended to those who live in Great Britain.
	I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley. It seems to me that so long as we are responsible for human rights in Northern Ireland we cannot give rights to citizens this side of the Irish Channel which we do not extend to citizens who live in Northern Ireland. Therefore, in our view the amendment is misguided and we shall oppose it.

Lord Alli: My Lords, without rehearsing our debates in Grand Committee, the arguments of the noble Baroness boil down into two major areas. First, there are not very many gay people in Northern Ireland anyway so why should we do this? She said in Grand Committee that there were only 238 couples in the census and therefore she did not see why the legislation should apply to Northern Ireland.
	The second objection of the noble Baroness essentially seems to be that because Northern Ireland can unite around a common cause of prejudice against gay people perhaps we might absent them from this particular case. We have had two notable speeches in the previous debate—that of the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, who is now in his place, and the noble Lord, Lord Fitt—and have listened once again to people talking about unnatural sexual acts and the hijacking of the word "gay".
	In the Northern Ireland context, I would say that this piece of legislation is probably needed more than in any other place. It will allow people who wish to register their civil partnerships to stand up and have protection in a way they do not at the moment. So the debate we witnessed less than two hours ago probably reinforces the need for this legislation more than anything else I have heard in the House.

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, before the Bill was introduced there were discussions with the usual channels about whether there should be pre-legislative scrutiny. The Official Opposition party and my party agreed that there should not be pre-legislative scrutiny, even though the Government explained that there would be a particular problem about Northern Ireland. They explained to us, all cards face up on the tables, that it would take them a little longer to get the amendments on Northern Ireland into the Bill, partly through consultation and the need to do the careful work.
	I then discussed the matter with the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox. We both agreed that the argument in favour of pre-legislative scrutiny was not well founded, and that the sooner we got the Bill into and through the House and enacted by Parliament, the better.
	It is therefore unfair to the Government, our two parties having taken this approach, for noble Lords to seek to suggest, as I think was suggested, that in some way the Government have acted improperly in producing a lot of amendments in Grand Committee on Northern Ireland after the original Bill was introduced. We knew that perfectly well in advance. When those amendments were introduced, in order to achieve clarity of intelligence on all our parts, a special procedure was adopted at my suggestion whereby the whole Bill in an amended form would be provided to us informally with all the explanatory notes that Ministers had.
	We then had very full debates on all the Northern Ireland amendments. It is simply unfair and disingenuous now to complain.

Lord Kilclooney: My Lords, historically in Ireland one of the great political problems has been the perception of England imposing laws in that island and, since 1921, in Northern Ireland. Let us not repeat the error again today. It is a matter not of human rights but of democracy and devolution. Either the Liberal Democrats support devolution or they do not, but they cannot have it both ways. If you accept the policy of devolution for Wales, for Scotland and for Northern Ireland, and since you agree that Scotland can make its own decisions in its own Parliament on this issue, then logically you should also accept the right of the people of Northern Ireland through their elected Assembly to make their own decisions. They will not be ones of discrimination against marriages for people of the same sex.
	There is a common understanding among the vast majority of people in Northern Ireland—Presbyterian, Anglican and Roman Catholic—on this particular issue. There is this common feeling in Northern Ireland and people such as the noble Lord, Lord Alli, and others should respect it and not try to override or impose their opinion on the majority of people in Northern Ireland.
	The Northern Ireland Assembly, of which I am a Member, is suspended temporarily. However, tomorrow at Lancaster House the Prime Minister Tony Blair will sponsor and host an all-party round table discussion on the issue of restoring devolution to Stormont in Northern Ireland. I think we should wait for the Assembly to be brought back into operation in Northern Ireland; and supporters of devolution should leave it to that Northern Ireland Assembly to make its decision for the people of Northern Ireland and not to impose a decision from outside.

Lord Henley: My Lords, perhaps I may say a few words, although I doubt whether they will have much effect, having heard the Government's new constitutional doctrine that they do not respond to amendments on Bills that are Lords' starters so that they can deal with them much more easily in another place.
	I make a few remarks in support of the amendment of my noble friend Lady O'Cathain. I offer the apologies of my noble friend Lord Glentoran. He hoped to be here to deal with the amendment but very much regrets that for business reasons he is unable to be here today. However, he wants to underline the point my noble friend made that when the consultation process took place in Northern Ireland some 86 per cent of the responses were in favour of not making a change and were opposed to the proposed changes to be imposed on Northern Ireland by the Bill.
	I think that it must be rare indeed in such a divided community for such clear breadth of opinion to be behind the sense of the kind of amendment put forward by my noble friend. How odd is it in this age of devolution for the Westminster Parliament to take a piece of legislation and impose it on the people of Northern Ireland, whose government may be at the moment in suspension but where, none the less, devolution is the norm?
	As we are in the presence of the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton, perhaps I may remind her that it was only on Tuesday when we discussed the Higher Education Bill that we debated amendments where concerns were raised on all sides of the House about the effects of academic freedom in Wales for certain matters to be devolved fully to the National Assembly for Wales. Despite the warnings from various noble Lords on the Government Back Benches, the House none the less resolved not to obstruct the will of Welsh Ministers and the Welsh Assembly, because these matters were devolved. In replying to that debate, the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton, will remember that she said that the Government are satisfied that the Assembly is best placed to make the judgment about how it wishes to take this forward.
	All that this amendment asks is that the people of Northern Ireland, who have a far longer tradition of devolution going right back to the 1920s, should have the same degree of respect. Therefore, I hope that the Minister—whichever Minister is replying, perhaps it will be the noble Baroness the Leader of the House—will give some sort of response.
	Since the Leader of the House will respond, I wonder whether I could take her on to amendments slightly beyond this one. We have heard from one of her Ministers, the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, that the Government do not intend to move any of their amendments this afternoon. Therefore, we presume that when they seek to overturn the decision taken earlier on today they will put their amendments in the Commons, they will then come back to this House, and we will have no chance whatever to discuss them. It would therefore be legitimate of me to ask the noble Baroness how she expects us to deal with those amendments when they come back to this House.
	I will start by looking briefly, if I may—although I appreciate that I might be slightly out of order—at the first group of government amendments that we were going to deal with before the Government announced this new and peculiar policy—that is government Amendments Nos. 13, 15, 17, 20, 24, 25, 34, 36 and 37. The noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, helpfully and kindly wrote a couple of letters to us earlier in the month setting out what was happening with those amendments and with some other amendments. She did not help her cause, or perhaps the Home Office did not help her cause, in that both letters were undated. That was just the first sign of the incompetence that my noble friend Lord Tebbit has talked about—

Lord Alli: My Lords, I am finding this difficult to follow. We were discussing Amendment No. 6, put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, about Northern Ireland. Perhaps the noble Lord can explain why he seems to have moved on to a different group of amendments. We should try to finish one group of amendments before we move on to another. Many of us have been through Grand Committee, and we have dealt with this Bill line by line. We want to consider things in the right order and in the right place. The noble Lord is in danger of going off into a conversation that no one will follow except him and the Minister. With due respect, this is Report stage, and we have been through Grand Committee. Can the noble Lord deal with Amendment No. 6? If he wishes to, after that he can perhaps find some other procedural measure to cover the other amendments.

Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Lord—

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I suggest to noble Lords that we stick to the grouping of the amendments as proposed. We are dealing with Amendment No. 6, which is grouped with Amendment No. 196. If the noble Lord has points to make on other amendments, perhaps he can make them at the appropriate place.

Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Alli, was most helpful to his Government, and no doubt they will take note of that. In due course, I look forward to seeing him on the Front Bench in the weeks or months to come.
	I accept that I was out of order. I was dealing with amendments that were beyond those in the group. I was doing that purely because the noble Baroness the Leader of the House is here, and she will be responding to Amendment No. 6. She might therefore be able to advise the House as to how we will be able to discuss those amendments that will go to the Commons, be moved in the Commons, probably not be discussed in the Commons, and we will have virtually no chance of discussing them here. It might be that we will have to seek changes to our procedures in this House when those amendments come back. I merely make that suggestion. If I decide not to detain the House too long, perhaps the noble Baroness will take some trouble to answer those points on those amendments that we are advised by her colleague the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, the Government have no intention of moving later this afternoon.
	Having said that, I offer my support to my noble friend Lady O'Cathain for her Amendments Nos. 6 and 196. If she does not move the amendments today, I hope that she will consider doing so on another occasion.

Lord Monson: My Lords, I remind noble Lords who oppose this amendment that the law in Northern Ireland on sexual matters already differs from that in the rest of the United Kingdom in that the age of consent in Northern Ireland is 17 rather than 16. So there is a precedent. My main purpose in rising is to ask the noble Baroness who is to reply to confirm an answer that was given to me in Grand Committee, I think by the Leader of the House, to the effect that the Northern Ireland Assembly, if and when it reconvenes, would definitely have the power to repeal this Bill if it goes through and becomes an Act in so far as it affects Northern Ireland, if a majority of Assembly Members so decided. Can the noble Baroness please confirm that on the Floor of the House?

Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords, there should not be any doubt about the attitude of the elected Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly. It has always been a tradition that those matters that affected the entire community right across the religious divide would be dealt with by its own elected Assembly. It is true that the Assembly looks to be some way off. That should not in any way give us the opportunity in this place to impose on the people of Northern Ireland of all religions and all political views something that they clearly would not want any more than they wanted, for example, abortion legislation when it was carried through these two Houses.

Lord Tebbit: My Lords, I find myself in some difficulties here. Some noble Lords may recollect that I tend to take an interest in both social legislation and legislation affecting Northern Ireland. They have come together here today. I also have an attachment to the concepts of parliamentary debate and fair play. I am tempted to support my noble friend's amendment if she takes it to a vote, but I would feel slightly uneasy about doing so if I had not heard the arguments put by the Government that might be to the contrary. If all I hear from the Government is, "No, we do not like it", but with no reasons given, what am I to do? I must make up my mind having heard only one side of a debate. All other noble Lords will be in the same position. For example, I am uncertain as to whether if the legislation goes through unamended in respect of Northern Ireland—that is if we do not accept the amendment proposed by my noble friend—that the Assembly when it is reconvened would have the power to undo it.
	I hope that the Leader of the House will not stick by the undertaking given or the threat made by her colleague, the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, that all we will hear is whether or not the Government like or dislike this amendment. I hope that she can find it in her heart to be so generous as to give us the Government's view, which I think would be quite authoritative, about whether the Northern Ireland Assembly would or would not have the power to repeal this. Surely, it is essential to know that before we can take a decision on the amendment.
	It would be unparliamentary conduct if we were to be denied the benefit of the noble Baroness's view, which will no doubt be buttressed by the notes about this issue that are received from the officials in the Box. After all, in this House today, there is no one more authoritative on the matter than the noble Baroness. Before I make my decision on this amendment, I will await what she says. It would not be fair to do otherwise—would it?
	By the way, while I am on my feet, I am so glad that I stayed on to hear this little debate. I shall now know where to find in Hansard the words of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, on the subject of the way in which we treat the people of Northern Ireland. As I understood them, his immortal words, which I jotted down—I shall not hold them word by word, but I shall look them up in the Official Report tomorrow—seem to show a remarkable similarity to things that I have said on Northern Irish legislation in this House more than once; namely, that we must not treat the citizens of Ulster differently from the remainder of the citizens of this kingdom. Amen to that. But almost every bit of Northern Ireland legislation that I have seen passing through this House during the time of this Government has done exactly that. That is why I have voted against so much of it. I welcome the prospect of having in the Lobby with me time and time again in the future, the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart.

Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: My Lords, I apologise for being a few minutes late returning to the Chamber. I have spoken earlier on this issue. This is not the first time that I have tried to persuade the Government to tread carefully. After 30 difficult years, which were nothing to do with today's issue, Northern Ireland is in a period of transition.
	Again and again, those of us who live and work in Northern Ireland are looking for points where the community can come together. In social terms, we are not and never have been anything other than a compassionate society. Politically, we have had huge difficulties. But socially, I believe that Northern Ireland is as compassionate a region as anywhere within the United Kingdom. We do not indulge in gay bashing and such things. Even the noble Lord, Lord Alli, would probably concur with me on that. It is not a practice that—

Lord Alli: My Lords, the noble Lord tempts me. But, if it is of any help, I could write to him providing some of the details of the abuses and violence in Northern Ireland towards young people and particularly young gay people. Rather than bore the House with that, perhaps he will let me do that.
	At this Report stage, we already know what the Government think. We heard it ad nauseam in Grand Committee. I think that we particularly heard the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit. On looking at the Official Report, one will find the Government's position 100 times over.

Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: My Lords, I am relieved that I do not tempt the noble Lord, Lord Alli, to expand on what he has already said. Within Northern Ireland there is a general consensus. People will not accept having this legislation imposed on them: 87 per cent of respondents in Northern Ireland have indicated that at best they do not understand what this legislation is about. That is not the basis on which to move forward in a region of the United Kingdom that has other problems to solve during this transitional period. So I ask the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, to press ahead with this amendment on the basis that we cannot have, for example, Northern Ireland excluded when it comes to the Mental Capacity Bill but included when it comes to this Bill.
	There is inconsistency so far as the Government are concerned. When it suits the Government to include Northern Ireland, without deep consideration of the needs of the people of Northern Ireland we are included in legislation. When it suits the Government to do otherwise we are excluded. As the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, remarked there is no consistency. Let us not add antagonism to what is a bad Bill. I think that the result of the previous vote indicated that the majority feel that this is a bad Bill. Again, let us not add antagonism to what is a bad Bill by pressing this issue against the proposed amendment. I hope that the noble Baroness will seriously consider the particular circumstances of Northern Ireland.

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I made the Government's reasons for legislating in Northern Ireland very clear in Grand Committee. Those reasons concern fairness and social justice, Perhaps I may restate for the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, what I said in Grand Committee and which was reported in Hansard: when the Northern Ireland Assembly and Executive are restored, they will be able to decide on transferred matters. I oppose the amendment of the noble Baroness.

Lord Tebbit: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, I thank her very much for what she has said and for the fact that she has already breached the policy set out by the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, who said that the Government would not reply in any way to the amendments put before the House. Now that we are back to normal working, can we get on?

Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, it is strange to be moving an amendment in this atmosphere. It is completely new to me and, I would guess, completely new to all noble Lords in the Chamber today. But so be it, we have to get on with the business in hand.
	On the issue of Northern Ireland, I think that the point has not been accepted; that it is due to the fact that the Assembly is suspended and is therefore not capable of making either a decision to say "yes" or "no" or of making any kind of contribution to the debate that I feel that it is quite outrageous to impose this Bill.
	The noble Lord, Lord Alli, suggested that I had all sorts of reasons for putting forward this amendment, but the only reason is that the Assembly should have the right to decide.
	I want to take issue with the noble Lord, Lord Lester, who said that agreement had been reached between the Front Benches about pre-legislative scrutiny. Some of us are not party to such agreements. Some of us are little, humble Back Benchers who never hear about what is going on in the corridors of power and between the usual channels. But, let us face it, we are part of the legislature as well. We have the right to hold our views, to express and to debate them. I do not want to be rolled over and told that there is an agreement between the Front Benches that pre-legislative scrutiny is not on order and therefore, in other words, the Back Benches are to be muzzled. That is not what I joined this House for.
	I do not want to become acrimonious over this issue because it is too important for that. I have listened carefully to all noble Lords who contributed to the debate, and in particular to the contribution from Northern Ireland. I wish that noble Lords really understood Northern Ireland. I can understand that they think that Northern Ireland has had an all-too difficult past and has been a problem for many years, in fact since 1921. But the reality is that it is an important part of the United Kingdom and we cannot either ignore it or ride roughshod over it. That is wrong, and we ought to take the lead by saying just how wrong it is.
	There is no question that if I were to press the amendment to a Division, I probably would not win. So I simply tell the Government that I shall come back to it at Third Reading. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Higgins: moved Amendment No. 7:
	Page 1, line 15, at end insert—
	"( ) For tax purposes registered same sex couples will be treated in the way as set out in the Finance Act 2004."

Lord Higgins: My Lords, this amendment is tabled in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Wilcox. In the light of earlier exchanges, it is clear that some of the Government's amendments are affected by what happened earlier in the day. But it is also the case that some may not be. If that is so, perhaps it would be convenient to move and debate those amendments. The same applies, to a greater or lesser extent, to our amendments.
	I hope that Amendment No. 7 will be extremely helpful. In the light of the present circumstances, I shall not make the same speech as the one that I made in Committee; I shall seek to be as constructive as possible. However, the point I made in Committee is still relevant.
	On the day the Bill was published the Inland Revenue issued a press release on the Civil Partnership Bill, child and working tax credits, child benefits and guardian allowances. It stated:
	"The Civil Partnerships Bill is social policy legislation, so any tax consequences will be dealt with in the first available Finance Bill.
	One would assume that that would mean the first Finance Bill in which it was possible to incorporate the clauses implementing what the Government have in mind with regard to taxation and civil partnerships. I have difficulty in interpreting that part of the press release in any other way.
	I do not understand, therefore, why the Government have not included it in the Finance Bill which is now going through another place—which, I believe, concluded its Committee stage a day or two ago, or is in the course of concluding its Committee stage and will then go on to Report stage—as it is clearly the first available Finance Bill. No such clauses have so far been introduced. I would be grateful if the noble Baroness who is to reply will tell the House whether it is the Government's intention to fulfil the clear promise in the Inland Revenue press notice that they would introduce the tax provisions in the first available Finance Bill.
	The Government may well argue that the implications are very different in the light of what has happened today. In a spirit of constructive approach to this problem, I have a solution for them. No doubt the Government have been informed—I presume that they are a joined-up government—that an amendment seeking to introduce a new Clause 6 has been tabled in the House of Commons. This relates to Clauses 279 to 281 of the Finance Bill, which deal with inheritance tax. It has been tabled for discussion either in Committee or, if there is not sufficient time, at Report.
	The new clause relates to the transfer of real property on death between joint occupiers, of whatever relationship, so that the survivor is not called upon to sell the home or to fund inheritance tax instalments they may not be able to afford. It makes transfer on death an exempt transfer to the extent that it comprises a part or a whole share in a real property that has been occupied as the main residence of the transferor and the transferee throughout two years prior to the date of death, and disregards any absences during that period arising from any residential nursing care.
	So far as inheritance tax is concerned, the effect of the clause would be to meet many of the concerns raised in the debate earlier today. It would have the added advantage that those receiving the benefit of such a clause would not in any way have to sign up to a civil partnership. It would solve that problem at a stroke, if I may put it that way.
	It would be extremely helpful if the Government would indicate that they understand these arguments. The House of Lords has certainly expressed very clearly, in the context of the present Bill, what it believes ought to happen to carers and those in danger of losing their house. An acceptance of that amendment—without any of the complications involved in doing it through this Bill—would enable this. It would provide a solution to the present dilemma. I hope very much that that can be done.
	Another point emerged in Committee which has not been fully appreciated, although one of the right reverend Prelates made the point earlier in the debate. Those living together would be able to form a civil partnership if they were same-sex couples, without necessarily having any sexual relationship. The noble Baroness made this clear in Committee. Quite apart from any provisions made with regard to those with a family relationship, they will in any event receive the benefits of the inheritance tax provisions.
	The Government rely heavily on press releases, often in strange circumstances. It would be very helpful if they could say clearly that it is their intention to implement in the Finance Act the same tax provisions which exist for married couples. It would be helpful if the noble Baroness could clarify that point. I hope that the Government will give careful consideration to whether we can achieve the same objectives that the House clearly indicated it wished to achieve without necessarily affecting the Bill, which I am anxious to see on the statute book.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I replied to this amendment on the first day of our Grand Committee proceedings, in cols. 36 to 42 of Hansard. I note, too, that this amendment refers to "registered same sex couples" being treated as married couples,
	"as set out in the Finance Act 2004".
	By virtue of the amendment that the House passed shortly before the short adjournment, the noble Lord will know that that definition now causes us some difficulty. I am not able to add further comments to those I made in Grand Committee. At this stage, we have to oppose the amendment, for the reasons I gave on the last occasion.

Lord Higgins: My Lords, the noble Baroness has not clarified why provisions will not be made in the first available Finance Act. My other point was that acceptance of the amendment would cover the groups we are discussing as well as a rather wider group, and that would help in both contexts. I give way.

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Higgins. As I recollect, this point was perfectly clarified in Grand Committee in a dialogue with my noble friend Lord Goodhart, who, unfortunately, is not in his place. It was explained exactly why it would have to be the Finance Act, when that would apply and the way in which it would be done. I do not have the record in front of me, but I am fairly confident that that happened.

Lord Higgins: My Lords, my point is that an amendment is already tabled in the other place, although not by the Government, which would enable them to fulfil the implicit—indeed, the explicit—promise they made in the press release.
	At all events, this amendment is sufficiently wide to deal with the Bill as it was before it was amended today and after its amendment today. Therefore, the difficulties created by accepting that amendment would be overcome, provided the Government, the Treasury and the finance legislation team were prepared to go along with this proposal, which seems the obvious way around these problems. If the noble Baroness is not prepared to say any more, it seems an extremely unhelpful way of proceeding. I intend to withdraw the amendment but will return to it at Third Reading. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness O'Cathain: moved Amendment No. 8:
	After Clause 1, insert the following new clause—
	"CATEGORIES OF CIVIL PARTNERS OTHER THAN SAME SEX COUPLES (1) Two persons within the specified degrees of family relationship, both of whom are aged over thirty years, shall be eligible to register as civil partners provided that they have lived together for a continuous period of twelve years immediately prior to the date of registration. (2) Schedule (Specified degrees of family relationship) contains provisions for determining when two people are within the specified degrees of family relationship."
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 2 [Formation of civil partnership by registration]:
	[Amendment No. 9 not moved.]
	Clause 3 [Eligibility]:

Baroness O'Cathain: moved Amendment No. 10:
	Page 2, line 33, at beginning insert "Subject to subsection (1A),"
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 11 not moved.]

Baroness O'Cathain: moved Amendment No. 12:
	Page 2, line 37, at end insert—
	"(1A) Subsection (1)(a) and (d) shall not apply in the case of two people who wish to register as civil partners under section (Categories of civil partners other than same sex couples)."
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 5 [Types of pre-registration procedure]:

Lord Henley: moved Amendment No. 13:
	Page 3, line 23, leave out "(including those procedures as modified by section 20)"

Lord Henley: My Lords, as the amendment belongs to the House, and the Minister does not want to move it herself, I thought it would be helpful to the House if I moved it on her behalf. In moving the amendment, I will also speak to government Amendments Nos. 15, 17, 20, 24, 25, 34, 36 and 37.
	I thank the Minister for writing from the Home Office to me and to the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, and others with an explanation of this amendment and some of the other amendments before us. I explained to the House earlier, before I was interrupted by the noble Lord, Lord Alli, that it did not help that the letters from the Home Office—that most efficient of departments—were not dated, especially as one of them says, "As I made clear in my letter of 17 June". I am not sure now which one of them is the letter of 17 June, but I presume that it is the one that does not say that. It must be the other one. However, the Minister did offer a number of explanations of the wide variety of amendments that she was putting before the House. I am grateful for that.
	This group of amendments is largely dealt with in the undated letter that I presume is the one of 17 June. Government Amendments Nos. 13, 15, 17 and 20 are dealt with on page 1 on her list entitled "explanation of government amendments". Government Amendments Nos. 24 and 25 are then inexplicably dealt with on page 7 of the explanatory note that she sent to us. Government Amendment No. 34 was again dealt with on page 1. Government Amendment No. 36 was dealt with on page 2 and government Amendment No. 37 was dealt with on page 37.
	I do not know whether I should read out the full details of these amendments. Amendment No. 13 is described merely as a technical amendment that does not affect the effect of Clause 5. I apologise to my noble friend for stepping on his foot. However, some of the other amendments have slightly longer explanations. If the House wishes, I could give details of those—unless the Minister herself wishes to respond to her own amendments and give some explanation of them.
	I find it odd that, when it comes to grouping their amendments, the Government have the expertise to manage and to persuade us that it is wise that government Amendments Nos. 13, 15, 17, 20, 24, 25, 34, 36 and 37 should be taken as one, but that, when they give the explanation to those of us principally involved in the Bill—as opposed to others—they manage to scatter them around in sheets of paper, all undated, in a manner that makes it very difficult to follow what is going on. That is why, when I was dealing with Amendment No. 6 and was interrupted by the noble Lord, Lord Alli, I wanted some explanation from the Government about how they propose to find some means whereby we could discuss adequately all the government amendments that they intend to produce—I presume—in the Commons after they have sought the wishes of the Commons in trying to overturn the earlier amendment. How do they expect us to be able to follow what they are doing and ensure that this House performs its role as one equipped to provide proper scrutiny of the Bill?
	My noble friend Lord Tebbit earlier referred to this Bill as being prepared in a "monumentally incompetent manner". I believe that that is correct. That was quoted by a noble Lord opposite as being some attack on the Bill. It was an attack not necessarily on the Bill but on the manner in which the Bill was prepared. It means that it is even more important that we in all parts of the House properly and adequately debate the intricacies of the Bill.
	I appreciate that there are many more government amendments. I do not know whether I shall necessarily be able to stay to discuss them, but others will—and that is all I intend to say on the matter. But I believe that it would be helpful if the Government could give us some sort of assurance as how they intend to allow this House properly to debate and discuss all the amendments before us. If the Government do not feel able to do that, it might be left to noble Lords such as myself or others to go through the explanation of government amendments tabled to the Civil Partnership Bill, sent out on 17 July, and read out every single explanation that the Government have given. However, I believe that most noble Lords would accept that that would not be a fit way in which to discuss the amendments that come before us. Other than that, all I can suggest is that we find some other procedure, when we come to the consideration of Commons amendments, that allows us properly to discuss the amendments. I beg to move.

Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I refer to the Government's statement from earlier this afternoon by my noble friend Lady Scotland. In the light of that statement, these amendments are not appropriate to the Bill in its new form. Therefore, on behalf of the Government, I have nothing further to say.

The Lord Bishop of Winchester: My Lords, may I press this matter further? I observe that many Members of your Lordships' House, much more experienced in its procedures than I am, are at least as puzzled if not more puzzled at what seems to be happening.
	The situation appears to be this—and maybe I can draw one of Her Majesty's Ministers to respond to it. Among the points made when the House voted earlier was that the vote was in disagreement with the character and impact of the amendment. The Government lost on that vote, which has surely to mean that among the things that the House did when it made that vote was to vote down the Government's understanding of the situation.
	To me, as a child in matters of procedure in this House, it remains the Government's responsibility to engage fully in the debate. The noble Lord, Lord Grocott, said that we needed to proceed with the Bill—which, it appears to me, is what the Government are not doing. Not to proceed with the debate seems to me not to take note of the vote of this House. Of course, that does not mean that the Government should change their mind, but they have a responsibility to pursue the procedure of the House. That was what the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, said, in his role as Chief Whip.
	The word "pique" did not occur only to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, who is not in his place—I wrote it down on my piece of paper, too. Her Majesty's Ministers owe it to the House that the House can do its business—which is surely, as the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, said, to proceed with this Bill.

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I am puzzled by the situation in which we find ourselves. If the Government choose not to move an amendment, that is their affair. If someone else chooses to move the amendment, that is their affair. No one is obliged to say anything on any of the issues.
	The problem that needs to be faced by the right reverend Prelate and others is as follows: I should have liked to move Amendment No. 102, which relates to pensions. If I had made a speech on that amendment, I would have drawn attention to important recent cases. But when one looks at Amendment No. 102, one can see that it is predicated upon a civil partnership between two same-sex couples. The moment when words are altered to include a whole variety of other categories, our amendment makes no sense whatever.
	I am now incapacitated from moving that important amendment, so long as the Bill is in this House. I shall therefore not do so. But my argument does not apply to that example alone—it runs right through the Bill. That is why I said that Amendment No. 3 was a mischievous wrecking amendment, destroying the entire purpose of the Bill in this House.

Lord Tebbit: My Lords, I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Lester, was beginning to make a very good and valid point. In fact, he was on the verge of making an excellent speech until he spoilt it with the last two or three sentences. I thought that he was coming, through the logic of his remarks, to the conclusion that it would be appropriate if the House now adjourned and that we did not come back to Report on the Bill for a little while, until the Government had sorted these matters out. It should not take them very long. I imagine that they have the best brains of the country at their command. They do not appear to have used them very much so far, but I am sure that they could make a better effort, given a week or two. We could get on with other business in the House next week. There is no particular rush on this. It might ease the problem of which is the next available Finance Bill and other such tricky issues for them. It would make it easier for everybody. I think we could all go home and consider what has been done today. Perhaps the Government Chief Whip might advise us whether he is attracted to the idea of pulling up stumps as opposed to sitting in his tent and—well, the word that comes to my mind is rather hard, it is "sulking".

Lord Henley: My Lords, I do not know whether the noble Baroness is going to respond to that but I am not sure whether it will help much. We have now had "nyet" from the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland; we have had "nyet" from the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, the Leader of the House; we have had "nyet" from the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis; and the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, makes it four.
	All I can say is that we are not going to let this go away. We want debate to make sure that we can discuss all these matters adequately and we will discuss them adequately. If we cannot discuss them here on Report, or if we cannot discuss them properly at Third Reading, for the rather odd reasons that we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, then we will have to discuss them and discuss them at length—I say that to the noble Lord the Chief Whip—when the Bill comes back to this House for consideration of Commons amendments. Then so be it. But this House will make sure that it discusses all these matters properly, in the manner that it ought to do. Having said that—

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, can he explain whether it is the position of the Opposition that they want speedy enactments in favour of same-sex couples?

Lord Henley: My Lords, as I understand it, even if it gets speedy enactment, the Bill will not come into effect for some time. We have no shortage of time, whatever the noble Lord says. If he thinks that speedy enactment of Bills should mean that we should not discuss them, other than the odd intervention from noble Lords on the Liberal Benches, I have to say that I think he is wrong. I think that the whole House should be able to discuss the Bill and we should not be deprived of doing it by the Government because of rather odd procedures that they wish to bring in. Before I withdraw the amendment, I think that my noble friend Lord Denham wants to make an intervention.

Lord Denham: My Lords, I have never heard anything quite like this before in this House. I think that, on reflection, the Government may feel that they have behaved with a certain lack of courtesy. They did not give any sort of warning about what was going to happen after the Division, which was subsequently carried against them. We are now left in a position where we are getting no answers at all, which has never happened in this House before. We are presumably expected to let the Bill slip through without any of the government amendments being moved and without any other amendments being replied to. I wonder whether, in the circumstances, the Leader of the House can come back and explain to the House whether this is the sort of treatment that we can accept in future. I think that the right reverend Prelate spoke extremely well on this and I am very sorry that his speech did not produce a reply from Her Majesty's Government.

Lord Grocott: My Lords, it is with some reluctance that I am again drawn to the Dispatch Box, but I wanted to repeat precisely and exactly what I said before. There is no pique or sulk on the part of the Government. It is simply that it is nonsensical to move government amendments that were tabled earlier and predicated on a situation that no longer exists. There is no discourtesy to the House in any Member—including a member of the Government; we are no more or less favoured than anyone else—deciding they do not wish to move their amendments. If the amendments are nonsensical in the light of a subsequent decision, then it is a courtesy to the House not to waste its time by moving amendments that are just that—nonsensical on the basis of a decision that has been made.
	I say to the right reverend Prelate that there is absolutely no discourtesy in doing that. I hope that we can proceed on the basis that if a Member, including a government member, does not want to move his amendment, the House can simply proceed to the next amendment. I am sure that that is precisely what has happened in all the long experience of the noble Lord, Lord Denham.

Lord Tebbit: My Lords, the noble Lord says that the amendment that was passed earlier has changed the whole basis of the Bill and so it is now not possible to debate the Government's amendments. I think that that is the point that he would put. But that must apply to all the other amendments as well.

Lord Grocott: My Lords, that is up to noble Lords.

Lord Tebbit: My Lords, the noble Lord says that it is up to us. However, he cannot say that there are two sorts of amendments—government amendments that are now not valid and relevant to the Bill; and everyone else's amendments that are—and so we should get on and discuss our amendments, with no replies from the Minister and no reasoning, with only half a debate at best—amendments that he would say do not relate to the Bill as it now stands. He nods. Then it seems to me that there is only one conclusion to be reached. He should move the adjournment of the House.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Why, my Lords?

Lord Tebbit: My Lords, the noble Lord nodded to the proposition that I made—that it is nonsensical to discuss the amendments. That means that no one has had an opportunity to table amendments that are relevant to the Bill as it is following the earlier vote. Surely any reasonable man would say, "Let us break off for a few days". At the end of that few days, the noble Lord, Lord Lester, with his customary ingenuity and remarkable legal ability, will have drafted new versions of his amendments that would fit to the Bill as it has been amended. Then we could get on and have some proper debates. The Government could come forward and tell us the implications of everything that is going on.
	What the noble Lord is saying is that he wants to get the Bill out of this place—with his tail between his legs, if I may put it that way—and dash it off down to the other place where the children will not interfere with it unduly. They will be timetabled. It will be chopped up bang, bang, bang, bang. Debate? My Lords, I do not believe that that is a proper way to behave. And I do not believe that, in his heart, the noble Lord does either.

Lord Henley: My Lords, I am rather torn now. I was minded to withdraw the amendment. However, I have a sneaking feeling that the best way to see where the Government stand on this would be for me first to ungroup it from the rest of the group.

Noble Lords: It was withdrawn.

Lord Henley: My Lords, I did not withdraw it because I was interrupted before I could. Having not withdrawn it, I think it is now open to me to press it and see just what the Government's attitude to it is.

Lord Grocott: My Lords, unless I completely misheard the position, the noble Lord—

A Noble Lord: Order.

Baroness Pitkeathley: My Lords, the Question is that the amendment be agreed to. As many of that opinion will say, "Content". To the contrary, "Not-Content".

Noble Lords: Not-Content!

Baroness Pitkeathley: My Lords, I think the Contents have it. Clear the Bar.
	Division called.

Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, Tellers for the Contents and for the Not-Contents have not been appointed pursuant to Standing Order 54. A Division therefore cannot take place. In accordance with Standing Order 57, which provides that no proposal to amend a Bill in the form in which it is before the House shall be agreed to unless there is a majority in favour of such an amendment, I declare the amendment disagreed to.

Clause 8 [Notice of proposed civil partnership and declaration]:

Baroness Wilcox: moved Amendment No. 14:
	Page 4, line 28, leave out subsection (2).

Baroness Wilcox: My Lords—

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I wonder whether noble Lords who wish to speak to each other would do so outside because the noble Baroness is unable to speak and we await her comments with interest.

Baroness Wilcox: My Lords, in good faith in this House, I beg to move Amendment No. 14 which stands in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Higgins. The amendment concerns Clause 8, which details some of the standard procedure for forming a civil partnership. Subsection (2) tells us that:
	"A notice of proposed civil partnership must contain such information as may be prescribed by regulations".
	Our amendment would leave out that subsection.
	Many noble Lords will remember the equivalent amendment from the days that we spent in Grand Committee. The argument has not changed since then. I am sure that none of us needs reminding that we are now working from a Bill of two volumes—at least, the Opposition are. Our argument is simply that, in a Bill of such size, we do not see why the Government need to leave out details that they will add later.
	In Grand Committee, the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, stated that the information likely to be required for the notice was,
	"a person's name, age, occupation, address and marital/civil partnership status".—[Official Report, 12/5/04; col. GC 142.]
	If the Government know what information the notices need to contain, why is that information not mentioned in the Bill? It cannot be because they are shy of tabling amendments to their own Bills, given the volume of them with which we have been faced in Grand Committee and on Report. Perhaps that is not quite what I should say at the moment. I beg to move.

Lord Alli: My Lords, I could not quite understand what the noble Baroness was getting at, in terms of the protection that she seeks to gain by not allowing the Bill—in her view—to write a blank cheque. Can she indicate what issue she is trying to pursue with the amendment?

Baroness Wilcox: My Lords, I am awfully sorry; I thought that I had been very clear. We have already discussed the question in Committee, but I am very happy to repeat what I said if that will help the noble Lord.

Lord Alli: My Lords, is the noble Baroness specifically seeking to put the information into the Bill?

Baroness Wilcox: My Lords, as the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, gave quite a clear statement, as the Bill is so big, and as we are taking so much trouble to put so much into it, this noble Baroness is suggesting that it would have been helpful to put the information into the Bill. That is what I ask for at this stage—nothing more than that.

Baroness Crawley: My Lords, in view of the statement made earlier, the Government have nothing to add to the arguments made in Grand Committee. We therefore oppose the amendment.

Baroness Wilcox: My Lords, I am naturally disappointed in that response. Having ploughed through the Bill in Committee and as I am now ploughing through it on Report, I am quite prepared to take my amendment away and return with it at Third Reading. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 15 not moved.]
	Clause 9 [Power to require evidence of name etc.]:

Lord Higgins: moved Amendment No. 16:
	Page 5, line 21, leave out subsection (3).

Lord Higgins: My Lords, the amendment relates to a clause concerned with the power to require evidence of the details of people who wish to become civil partners. It is becoming apparent that some of the amendments are significantly affected by the amendments agreed earlier, and some are not. If amendments are not affected significantly by those amendments, or would be relevant whether those amendments had been accepted or not, it may save time later and anyway be a sensible way of proceeding if the Government respond to them.
	We discussed the matter in Committee. At that time, the Minister said that the Government would look at the points again. I merely inquire whether they have come to any conclusions as a result of doing so.
	Perhaps I may raise an additional matter that has arisen since we discussed the matter in Committee. In marriages special procedures exist for immigrants or asylum seekers—I am not clear which. They will be required to go to a special office if they wish to be married. That is designed, no doubt, to avoid marriages of convenience which overcome the immigration requirements. That may be relevant whether or not the amendment carried earlier is acceptable. In addition to the points that I made in Committee, can the Minister say whether or not the provisions for civil partnerships will be specified in a similar way to those that apply to people wishing to marry? That would seem sensible. Perhaps the Minister could outline the Government's intention at this stage. I beg to move.

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, the amendment illustrates as well as any the difficulty that we are in, because the amendments were tabled before we made the fundamental change to the Bill. All of these amendments would have to be reconsidered if the Bill were to remain as amended.
	I introduced my Bill two and a half years ago and it rightly took the Government two years to produce an extraordinarily long Bill. That length of time was also right because the Bill had to cover the whole of marriage law in Northern Ireland, Scotland, England and Wales and apply it mutatis mutandis to same-sex couples. If one were now to seek to alter the amendment and all of the other amendments to accommodate a wider range of relationships—an extraordinarily wide range that goes well beyond the object of the Bill—the consequence of that would be that it would take a team of Government lawyers, Ministers and their advisers not less than two years to produce not two volumes, but probably five volumes of a single Bill, even though the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, suggested that I was clever and could somehow do it. It would become an omnibus Bill, a portmanteau Bill, into which had been packed a wide range of other social relationships that were well beyond the needs of same-sex couples.
	That is why I oppose the amendment and any other amendment predicated upon the Bill that has been changed by this debate. The Official Opposition have told us from the beginning, through their leader, the right honourable Michael Howard, that they were in favour of the Bill, that they were a new party in favour of gay rights for the first time in their history and that they would accelerate the Bill by having no pre-legislative scrutiny. But they are now saying to same-sex couples, "You can forget about that, because we will filibuster when the Bill comes back from the Commons. We will keep this going as long as we can because we do not really believe in its objective".

Lord Higgins: My Lords, we have not the least intention of filibustering the Bill. My party's position is clear—in fact, not my party, because, unlike the Liberal Democrat Benches, we are on a free vote. But the leader of my party has made the position clear: we are anxious to put the Bill on the statute book.
	One of the ways around the problem that we have encountered today would be to cover the points about which the House is concerned in the finance legislation. Then we could proceed with this Bill without those matters. That does not mean that it is not reasonable to move the amendment, particularly to clarify the situation with regard to immigrants and asylum seekers, which I raised with the noble Baroness. In Committee she said that she would look at the matter again. The points that were raised then are in no way affected by the amendment carried earlier and it would be reasonable for the Government to respond. There is no question whatever of filibustering the Bill. On the contrary, we are anxious to make progress.

Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I have no wish to be disrespectful to the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, as I am sure he will recognise. However, as he was looking for a detailed response from us, I have to disappoint him. The Government have nothing to add to the arguments made in Grand Committee, save to say that it is simply not necessary on the face of the Bill to list all the documents that would be acceptable evidence of these different types of information. We therefore oppose the amendment.

Lord Higgins: My Lords, that is a clear answer to the points made in Committee. The noble Baroness said that she would look at the matter and we now have her considered view on it. However, I hope that we can clarify the other point that I raised, to which there was no response. The noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, may be prepared to give a clearer view at Third Reading and I may well table an amendment to that effect to cover the point. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 10 [Proposed civil partnership to be publicised]:
	[Amendment No. 17 not moved.]
	Clause 14 [Issue of civil partnership schedule]:
	[Amendment No. 18 not moved.]
	Clause 22 [Evidence to be produced]:

Lord Higgins: had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 19:
	Page 11, line 14, leave out paragraph (a).

Lord Higgins: My Lords, some amendments are affected by that which was carried earlier and some are not. This amendment is now even more relevant, but one would need to consider the implications of what has happened in deciding whether it is drafted in precisely the form which would cover the points we want to raise. I shall not move it now but will return to the matter at Third Reading.

[Amendment No. 19 not moved.]
	[Amendment No. 20 not moved.]
	Clause 25 [Issue of Registrar General's licence]:
	[Amendment No. 21 not moved.]
	Clause 35 [Regulations and orders]:

Baroness O'Cathain: moved Amendment No. 22:
	Page 16, line 4, at end insert—
	"( ) with respect to determining whether two people have lived together for the period of twelve years specified in section (Categories of civil partners other than same sex couples)."
	On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness O'Cathain: moved Amendment No. 23:
	Before Schedule 1, insert the following new schedule—
	"SCHEDULE A1
	Specified degrees of family relationship
	(1) Two people are within the specified degrees of family relationship if one falls within the list below in relation to the other. Adoptive child Adoptive parent Child Former adoptive child Former adoptive parent Grandparent
	Grandchild Parent Parent's sibling Sibling Sibling's child (2) In the list "sibling" means a brother, sister, half-brother or half-sister."
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Schedule 3 [Registration by former spouses one of whom has changed sex]:
	[Amendments Nos. 24 and 25 not moved.]
	Clause 41 [Attempts at reconciliation of civil partners]:

Baroness Wilcox: moved Amendment No. 26:
	Page 19, line 3, after "applicant" insert "at the first available opportunity"

Baroness Wilcox: My Lords, this amendment concerns Clause 41 which details provisions on attempts at reconciliation of civil partners. The clause would allow a court hearing an application to dissolve a civil partnership to adjourn proceedings if it appears that the civil partners have a reasonable possibility of achieving reconciliation. The clause states that the court must make provision for the applicant's solicitors to certify that they have discussed with their clients the possibility of reconciliation and to provide the applicant with details of persons qualified to help the civil partners effect reconciliation.
	In Grand Committee, I first raised our concerns regarding this clause in a general clause-stand-part debate, but have now drafted an amendment which is more suited to the point we are trying to make. Our amendment would ensure that the applicant's solicitor raises the possibility of a reconciliation with his client,
	"at the first available opportunity".
	We are looking for a way of ensuring that reconciliation is raised by the solicitor as early as possible and not at the courtroom door. An early reconciliation will save the applicant money and both the applicant and the court system time. As I have said on many occasions, civil partnerships are not something which should be entered into lightly and they should be given all the chances that can be given to reconcile such a relationship. I beg to move.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, this may be a very decent and well intentioned amendment and, under other circumstances, it may be the kind of amendment that the Government would want to consider. But, as I understand it, it is designed to deal with the situation where a civil partnership between a same-sex couple is breaking up and those involved are going through a process, which, had they been an opposite-sex married couple, would be called divorce.
	Given the amendment that was agreed to this morning, it is very difficult to see how one would apply any such vocabulary to the ending or dissolution of a civil partnership between, say, a mother and son or a brother and sister who remain mother and son or brother and sister even after the civil partnership is over.
	Therefore, the noble Baroness will understand that I simply cannot engage in this debate, much as I would wish to do so, because the context within which the concerns raised by the noble Baroness, perfectly decently, would otherwise have been discussed is now completely different. Therefore, I am afraid that the Government cannot make any further response.

The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford: My Lords, following the events earlier today, I entirely understand the Government's difficulty. However, on the assumption that Parliament will, by one route or another, get its act together and sort out the confusions that have arisen, perhaps I may say that the clause that we are debating is a very interesting piece of legislation. I am delighted to see it, and I have some sympathy with the amendment because it also has an implication for matrimonial law and practice.
	The language of reconciliation is used on the face of the Bill. I know that the noble and learned Lord who was Lord Chancellor, and who introduced a very important Act of Parliament, Part 2 of which the Government decided not to fulfil a while back, made some efforts to get that into matrimonial law.
	If we sort out the mess—I believe that we are in a mess with regard to this Bill—and we find a way of proceeding, perhaps I may say to some noble Lords opposite that this is not just about gay and lesbian couples; it is about same-sex partnerships. Can we keep the language clear so that we include all those who may potentially benefit if we get our act together? However, I should like to encourage the Government to "roll on" if we reach that point and to think about the implications for matrimonial practice as well.

Baroness Wilcox: My Lords, I have some sympathy with the Minister's response to me. However, I had written down "civil partnerships, same sex" and I hope, too, that at some stage we shall be able to consider this amendment. I am extremely grateful to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford. I was a little confused earlier and I hope that he will excuse me as I nearly referred to him as the Bishop of Guildford. He is right. We are talking about same-sex couples here, and I am delighted that we can at least place that on the record in Hansard. I hope that at some point we shall be able to return to the amendment in some form to see whether we can take it further. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 53 [Validity of civil partnerships registered outside England and Wales]:
	[Amendments Nos. 27 to 33 not moved.]
	[Amendment No. 34 not moved.]
	Schedule 5 [Financial relief in the High Court or a county court etc.]:
	[Amendment No. 35 not moved.]
	Clause 77 [Adoption]:
	[Amendment No. 36 not moved.]
	Schedule 9 [Family homes and domestic violence]:
	[Amendment No. 37 not moved.]
	[Amendment No. 38 not moved.]
	Clause 82 [Formation of civil partnership by registration]:

The Duke of Montrose: moved Amendment No. 39:
	Page 38, line 7, after "has" insert—
	"(a) freely agreed to enter a civil partnership, and (b)"

The Duke of Montrose: My Lords, this is one of several Scottish amendments which have been put to us by the Scottish Law Society. This amendment ensures that the parties to a civil partnership clearly agree to enter the partnership. The reason given by the Law Society is that the Bill infers that parties agree to enter the civil partnership by, for example, contemporaneous inscription of the civil partnership schedule. However, there is no specific requirement for agreement between the parties. The amendment provides for that agreement. It would also allow for avoidance of the partnership if a party lacked capacity or was induced to enter the partnership through fraud or under duress. I beg to move.

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, in view of the changed nature of civil partnership following the earlier amendment, I am unable to contribute to the debate on this amendment at this stage. In common with the rest of the Bill, the Scottish clauses are fundamentally altered.

The Duke of Montrose: My Lords, in view of that statement, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 83 [Eligibility]:

Baroness O'Cathain: moved Amendment No. 40:
	Page 38, line 20, at beginning insert "Subject to subsection (1A),"
	On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 41.
	Page 38, line 26, leave out "of understanding the nature of civil partnership" and insert "of—
	(i) understanding the nature of civil partnership, or (ii) validly consenting to its formation".

The Duke of Montrose: My Lords, perhaps I may say a few words on this amendment. The Government have tabled amendments that cover some of these Scottish issues, which are very well thought through. In a way, if the opportunity were open to me, I would prefer Amendment No. 41 to my Amendment No. 42. The same would apply to Amendment No. 47 rather than Amendment No. 48, which are in this group. We are in rather difficult territory at the moment.

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, I remind noble Lords—if they need any reminding—that the Scottish clauses in the Civil Partnership Bill achieve the same policy purposes as Part 2, but they have been drafted to reflect the special characteristics of Scots law. In view of the fundamental change in the definition of civil partnership, following the earlier amendment, I shall not be able to move the Scottish amendments tabled on behalf of the Scottish Executive.

The Lord Bishop of Winchester: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, surely it is the case that whatever the disagreement about the character of civil partnership—we could spend a lot of time on that—it is important that it is entered into responsibly. Therefore, it seems to me that, with respect, what the Minister has just said has no logic. How the partnership is entered into is important, whatever its character. Therefore, it seems to me that this is an amendment that can work.

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, I beg to differ. I believe that there is an absolute logic in the position that I am taking. We are harmonising English law with Scottish law. If the definition of civil partnership has changed in English law as a result of the vote earlier, we are not comparing like with like. Many of the amendments that the Government were to propose came to us as a result of helpful interventions by the Law Society of Scotland. I anticipate that in due course I shall be able to do the job that I had hoped to do this afternoon, which was to make absolutely sure that there was no conflict between English law and Scottish law in this very important matter. This afternoon I am unable to move the government amendments for that reason.

Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, however the Bill is drawn up, whatever it covers—whether it covers one group or a wider group, as a result of the earlier amendment—it is important that Scottish law, in particular in relation to these amendments, should be properly written into the Bill. The object of the Law Society of Scotland, as I understand it, in making these suggestions both to the Government and to ourselves, was to improve the way in which Scottish law will apply to whomever it applies. Whether it applies to the narrow group that the Government originally intended, or to a rather wider group, as a result of the decision taken by the House earlier, the Scottish law should be right.
	When the Minister reflects on this matter, he will consider that the Scottish law should be right in either case. It seems to me that at least some of the amendments should apply, whether to the narrower group or to the wider group of people. That is particularly true of government Amendment No. 41, which my noble friend the Duke of Montrose said he prefers to the earlier version.

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, I am afraid that I must disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Cope. In the speaking notes for Amendment No. 41 the phrase "civil partnership" is on every other line. Civil partnership now does not mean what it meant when we started at eleven o'clock this morning.
	That is not something that I can do anything about; it is a reality that I have to confront at 5.20 this afternoon. If I talk from my notes about civil partnerships in England and compare them to civil partnerships in Scotland and what needs to be done to harmonise the two concepts, I shall get into a terrible muddle. I cannot do so because we are now dealing with two very different terms. I apologise to the House for taking this stance, but I have been put into this position, as have all Ministers, by the amendment moved this morning and carried by the House.

The Duke of Montrose: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Like my noble friend Lord Cope I am equally puzzled. I understood that the Bill and the legislation we have in front of us about civil partnerships exactly matched the legislation on marriages and that whatever group one is talking about, if one wishes to parallel the legislation on marriages one would use exactly the same phrase.

[Amendment No. 41 not moved.]
	[Amendment No. 42 not moved.]

Baroness O'Cathain: moved Amendment No. 43:
	Page 38, line 26, at end insert—
	"(1A) Subsection (1)(a) and (b) shall not apply in the case of two people who wish to register as civil partners under section (Categories of civil partners other than same sex couples)."
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	[Amendments Nos. 44 to 46 not moved.]
	Clause 89 [Objections to registration]:
	[Amendments Nos. 47 and 48 not moved.]
	Clause 90 [Place of registration]:
	[Amendments Nos. 49 to 51 not moved.]
	Clause 110 [Civil partners: competency of interdict]:

The Duke of Montrose: moved Amendment No. 52:
	Page 56, line 19, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
	"(1) It shall be competent for the Court of Session or the Sheriff to entertain an application by one civil partner in a civil partnership for a relevant interdict."

The Duke of Montrose: My Lords, the amendment rewords Clause 110 to make a more positive statement of competency for interdict proceedings in the Court of Session or sheriff court. The clause is required because Clause 109 follows closely the wording of Section 14 of the Matrimonial Homes (Family Protection) (Scotland) Act, which created the concept of matrimonial interdicts.
	The provision currently employs a double negative. The society is of the view that this could be more clearly expressed. There is no logical necessity to follow the earlier statutory provision, which in any event relates to matrimonial law. I beg to move.

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, I am in exactly the same position as I was on the previous group of amendments. I have nothing to say to the proposed amendment of the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose.

The Duke of Montrose: My Lords, would the noble Lord have been able to accept the amendment if we had not amended the Bill earlier?

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, I think we will have to await future developments.

The Duke of Montrose: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 114 [Dissolution]:

The Duke of Montrose: moved Amendment No. 53:
	Page 59, line 29, leave out paragraph (b).

The Duke of Montrose: My Lords, the amendment deletes the provision for dissolution on the basis of desertion. Clause 113(3)(b) reflects the provisions contained in Section 1(2)(c) of the Divorce (Scotland) Act 1976.
	The Scottish Law Commission has recommended that desertion as a basis for establishing the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage should be abolished. Accordingly, it is appropriate in relation to the civil partnership that this thinking is reflected in the law.
	The amendment reconstructs the law relating to dissolution and judicial separation. The Scottish Executive has published a consultation paper on family law reform called Family matters: improving family law in Scotland. It contains firm proposals for two years. I beg to move.

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, again, I feel unable to contribute to the debate, although I think that the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, would be very happy with the answer that I would give him if I was able to.

The Duke of Montrose: My Lords, may I take that as an implied acceptance of the amendment?

The Lord Bishop of Winchester: My Lords, while the noble Duke is on his feet, is not the logic of that that he should press his amendment?

The Duke of Montrose: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 54 and 55 not moved.]
	Clause 117 [Separation]:

The Duke of Montrose: moved Amendment No. 56:
	Leave out Clause 117.

The Duke of Montrose: My Lords, this amendment would delete Clause 117. Clause 117 provides for judicial separation in respect of civil partnerships. Until 1861, a judicial separation was the only consistorial remedy for cruelty and it was only in 1938, when cruelty became a ground of divorce, that separation became less common. It is still competent in a marriage context for people who do not wish to be divorced for religious reasons, given the provisions for dissolution that interdict, and there appears to be no good reason why judicial separation should be extended to civil partnerships. The Law Society of Scotland wants to probe the reasons for including that in the Bill. I beg to move.

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, again, I must say that at this stage, I am unable to respond to the noble Duke's amendments.

Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, surely the Minister could explain why the Government originally proposed to insert that into the Bill?

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, perhaps I may explain that this is Report and I have sat down.

The Duke of Montrose: My Lords, it is obviously difficult to proceed on this basis.

On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 118 [Dissolution following on decree of separation]:

The Duke of Montrose: moved Amendment No. 57:
	Leave out Clause 118.

The Duke of Montrose: My Lords, this amendment raises the same argument as that in the previous amendment with regard to Clause 118. I beg to move.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 56) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 43; Not-Contents, 104.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
	Clause 120 [Nullity]:
	[Amendment No. 58 not moved.]
	Clause 121 [Validity of civil partnerships registered outside Scotland]:
	[Amendments Nos. 59 to 65 not moved.]
	Clause 123 [Regulations]:

Baroness O'Cathain: moved Amendment No. 66:
	Page 63, line 21, at end insert—
	"( ) Regulations so made may in particular make provision with respect to determining whether two people have lived together for the period of twelve years specified in section (Categories of civil partners other than same sex couples)."
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 67 not moved.]
	Clause 134 [Eligibility]:

Baroness O'Cathain: moved Amendments Nos. 68 and 69:
	Page 67, line 16, at beginning insert "Subject to subsection (1A),"
	Page 67, line 22, at end insert—
	"(1A) Subsection (1)(a) and (d) shall not apply in the case of two people who wish to register as civil partners under section (Categories of civil partners other than same sex couples)."
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Clause 155 [Regulations]:

Baroness O'Cathain: moved Amendment No. 70:
	Page 75, line 14, at end insert—
	"( ) Regulations made under subsection (1) may in particular make provision with respect to determining whether two people have lived together for the period of twelve years specified in section (Categories of civil partners other than same sex couples)."
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 157 [Powers to make orders and effect of orders]:
	[Amendment No. 71 not moved.]
	Clause 165 [Supplemental provisions as to facts raising presumption of breakdown]:
	[Amendments No. 72 not moved.]
	[Amendment No. 73 not moved.]
	Clause 179 [Supplementary provisions as to declarations]:
	[Amendment No. 74 not moved.]
	Clause 185 [Transfer of proceedings]:
	[Amendment No. 75 not moved.]
	[Amendment No. 76 not moved.]
	Schedule 15 [Financial relief in the High Court or a county court etc.: Northern Ireland]:
	[Amendments Nos. 77 and 78 not moved.]
	Schedule 16 [Financial relief in court of summary jurisdiction etc.: Northern Ireland]:
	[Amendments Nos. 79 to 82 not moved.]
	[Amendments Nos. 83 and 84 not moved.]
	Clause 204 [Meaning of "overseas relationships"]:
	[Amendment No. 85 not moved.]
	Schedule 20 [Meaning of overseas relationship: specified relationships]:
	[Amendment No. 86 not moved.]

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: moved Amendment No. 87:
	Page 314, line 19, at end insert—
	
		
			  
			 "United States of America:Massachusetts same sex marriage or civilunion, as the case may be"

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, Amendment No. 87 is tabled in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Goodhart. It is an example of the Gilbert and Sullivan situation which the House has been put into today that the position is now as follows. Had not the Bill been wrecked, making pointless Schedule 20 to it, the Government would have moved Amendment No. 86. I am delighted that they would have done because they have decided to include the two Canadian provinces of Quebec and Nova Scotia in the schedule because each of the registered partnership schemes satisfies the Bill's criteria.
	Amendment No. 87 seeks to include the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in Schedule 20. Certainly this would not be pleasing to the President of the United States, but it would be pleasing to many other people in Massachusetts and beyond. I shall explain. The Bill contains a power to specify jurisdictions which have schemes that fulfil the requirements to be recognised as civil partnerships in the UK. At present the only United States jurisdiction specified is Vermont. I and others hope to persuade the Government—and certainly when the Bill reaches the other place—that it would be right to include Massachusetts in the specified list. That is because, as the Government fairly concede, its gay marriage provisions fully meet the prescribed criteria in the Bill.
	I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, for her letter to me of 10 June that was copied to all Peers who spoke in Grand Committee. I do not agree that the law in Massachusetts is subject to what is referred to as,
	"such uncertainty that it would be premature to include Massachusetts same-sex marriage in Schedule 20".
	As regards the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, the legal position is clearly set out in the first judgments of the Supreme Court of Massachusetts in the Goodridge case where Chief Justice Margaret Marshall, who I had the pleasure of meeting again the other day, conveniently summarised the relevant provisions for registration of marriages under Massachusetts state law. As the Government concede, it is quite clear that they fully satisfy the general requirements and conditions in the Bill.
	I can say with the authority of others that there is no prospect of the decisions of the Massachusetts Supreme Court being challenged or reversed between now and the coming into force of the Bill. I understand that in May the Supreme Court of the United States rejected an attempt to prevent gay marriages being registered. To amend the Massachusetts state constitution, there would have to be a referendum in two years' time. Even if that were successful in amending the law, it could not take effect for a further two years. Moreover, if it were successful, it would turn gay marriages into civil unions, which would equally satisfy the matching requirements of the Bill.
	I suggest that it is unfair and unnecessary for gay and lesbian partners who have registered lawfully under the prevailing Massachusetts legislation which meets the requirements of the Bill to be left in doubt about what will happen once it comes into force at some point next year, particularly given that the content of the Massachusetts law would not be altered, if at all, for at least two years and, if altered, would still fully meet the requirements of this Bill.
	I know that the Government have received representations from the General Court of Massachusetts and from 24 or 25 state senators. Perhaps I may refer to the letter that they sent to the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland. They said:
	"We are delighted that the United Kingdom is considering passage of a Civil Partnership Bill.
	"We understand that the Bill specifies particular jurisdictions as having schemes that fulfil the requirements of civil partnerships in the United Kingdom".
	They then explain that only Vermont is covered in the specified list and hope that the Government will include Massachusetts. The letter continues:
	"We hope that the United Kingdom Government will agree that it is unfair and unnecessary for gay and lesbian partners who have been married lawfully under Massachusetts law to be excluded once the Civil Partnership Bill comes into effect next year, particularly given that the content of the Massachusetts constitution will not be altered (if at all) for at least four years. If the United Kingdom does not recognize these relationships, families will be hurt if they decide to relocate from Massachusetts to the United Kingdom.
	"Thank you for your consideration of our request".
	The letter is signed by state senator Barrios of Cambridge, Massachusetts, and 24 or 25 other state senators.
	Why does it matter? It matters because there will be, let us say, middle-aged same sex couples who are married now under Massachusetts law. Like everyone everywhere in the world, they know that the law could be changed in Massachusetts. But they are there now and they need to know what their legal position is.
	If the Minister were to reply to the amendment—I am not requesting that she should—she would confirm, I am sure, that such people will have no problem because they will satisfy the general conditions in the Bill. But how will they know that on the basis of a Pepper v Hart statement made by the Minister today? They will know it if Massachusetts goes into the schedule.
	What possible reason could there be for not putting Massachusetts into the schedule? I am sorry to say that the only one I can think of is entirely political. We have a coalition government in some areas between this Government and the Government of the United States. We do not wish to offend the President of the United States, who went on record as soon as the court in Massachusetts made its decision. While the President was in London, he denounced the decision and said that he would seek to reverse it.
	Any reversal using the federal constitution would probably take about 20 years. As the Minister knows—because she and I both had the privilege of a graduate education in the United States—it is extremely difficult to carry a constitutional amendment requiring the approval of all the states. It is ridiculous and unfair for gay and lesbian couples to be left in a position of legal uncertainty for reasons that do not pass muster. For example, in Canada, the law can equally be changed, and it can be changed in any of the other jurisdictions listed in the schedule.
	I do not expect the Government to say today that they accept the amendment—I expect them to stick to the line that they have taken—but I have no doubt this issue will be raised in the other place. It might be better to raise the issue in the other place, where parliamentarians who are elected can listen to parliamentarians who are elected in Massachusetts and in the US Congress.
	I have sufficient optimism in the Government, who have been splendid in the way in which they have approached the Bill. This is one of my only two rubbing points; otherwise the Bill is extremely welcome in all other respects. It would be very sad if the Government were, in that well-known cliché, to spoil the ship for a ha'porth of tar.
	I very much hope that, even though the amendment will not be acceptable today, the mind of the Government will be sufficiently ajar for them to look more closely at the legal situation in Massachusetts. My amendment gives same-sex marriage or civil union as the two alternatives, which would deal with the situation should the law change. I hope that the Government will be sympathetic to what I am seeking to do with the object of explaining to the citizens of Massachusetts what the implications would be if they changed residence and came to this country. I beg to move.

Lord Alli: My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Lester, on this particular amendment. I believe that the Government's position, as outlined in Grand Committee, is wholly inconsistent. If the state of Massachusetts has made gay marriage legal, then until an appeal is successful, those citizens should be treated as having a civil partnership in terms of recognition under the Bill.
	I would push the Minister to look at the issue again but I suspect, on a non-party political point, that I will get the same response as the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, and the noble Lords, Lord Higgins and Lord Lester. I suspect that she may not be tempted to go into this matter, even if it is put to her from this side of the House, but at least all parties will suffer.

The Lord Bishop of Winchester: My Lords, while I regret the character of the Massachusetts legislation, as the noble Lord, Lord Lester, will understand, that does not seem the point at the moment. What he has proposed seems entirely in line with the Bill as it is, in my view—as it was, in the view of the noble Lord and the Government. I believe the proposal is entirely in line with the Bill as it is, although the Government and the noble Lord, Lord Lester, think that it has been more radically changed than I think it has been. However, that is not the point at issue.
	I thought there was not a leaf to be put between the Front Bench and the noble Lord. It is not possible to do business with the Bill now and the Government have been refusing to move their amendments, but the noble Lord has moved his amendment. The craziness of the situation seems a few notches crazier as a result of the noble Lord's latest intervention.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Lester, and my noble friend Lord Alli rightly anticipated the Government's response, I am afraid, due not so much to the instability of the situation that arose this morning but to the instability of the situation in the United States. These arguments were addressed much more fully by my noble friend Lady Scotland in Committee, and I do not need to rehearse them. Both my noble friend Lord Alli and the noble Lord, Lord Lester, will understand where the Government are coming from on this issue.
	I also regret that I do not think that at this stage I can sensibly and usefully move the government amendment. But if, on reflection, we feel we can, we will come back to it at Third Reading.

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I am very grateful to everyone who has taken part in this debate. I thought it was sensible to move the amendment because, although it has become a nonsense in that it makes no sense to have a schedule of this kind which deals only with same-sex relationships, if one is concerned about recognising carers across the world in the way that one is recognising homosexuals throughout the world one would need to amend the schedule radically to include wives, husbands, fathers, mothers, sisters, brothers and others all over the world who would have to be given recognition if they came to live in this country. That is why I began by saying it is a Gilbert and Sullivan situation. My amendment has in any event been wrecked by what the Official Opposition have done.
	The only argument that has been put forward is that the situation in Massachusetts is unstable. I must be the most optimistic Member of this House in saying this, but I very much hope that even at this stage officials will look more carefully at exactly what the situation in Massachusetts is, and we can help them to do so. The position is not unstable. The present position is that the marriage code in Massachusetts has been applied verbatim to gay and lesbian couples. I quite understand the right reverend Prelate's objection to the absolutism of the view taken by the Supreme Court in Massachusetts, which said that civil partnership is not enough—it must be marriage because there must be total equality under the state constitution. I personally understand why many people believe that to be a step too far. I do not agree with them, but I understand.
	However, those in the Massachusetts legislature who object to that measure are in favour of civil partnerships. They say that marriage goes too far and civil partnerships are fine and dandy. They are seeking in a referendum in two years' time—which would come into effect in four years' time—to amend the state constitution dealing with marriage to make it clear that marriage, unlike civil partnership, must apply only to men and women and not to same-sex couples. They intend to do that in order to leave in place exactly the same substantial rights for same-sex couples, although it will be civil union or civil partnership instead.
	That is why the situation is wholly stable. If I thought that there were a risk of a challenge in an appeal—for example, to the Supreme Court in the United States or some other jurisdiction—or if I thought that what was being threatened was likely to happen before this Bill became law or there was a change to the legislation, that would be a different matter. Having said all of that, I will not press the amendment further. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 206 [The general conditions]:
	[Amendments Nos. 88 and 89 not moved.]
	Clause 208 [The same-sex requirement]:
	[Amendments Nos. 90 and 91 not moved.]
	Clause 220 [Meaning of "the court"]:
	[Amendment No. 92 not moved.]
	Clause 222 [Proceedings for presumption of death order]:
	[Amendments Nos. 93 and 94 not moved.]
	Clause 229 [Supplementary provisions relating to recognition of dissolution etc. ]:
	[Amendments Nos. 95 to 99 not moved.]
	[Amendment No. 100 not moved.]
	Clause 243 [Civil partners to have unlimited insurable interest in each other]:
	[Amendment No. 101 not moved.]
	[Amendment No. 102 not moved.]
	Schedule 23 [Social security, child support and tax credits]:

Lord Higgins: moved Amendment No. 103:
	Page 318, line 18, leave out paragraphs 1 to 5.

Lord Higgins: We now come to Amendment No. 103 with which we may debate Amendment No. 105. If I do not move subsequent amendments, that means I am carefully considering to what extent we should return to them at Third Reading in the light of the unforthcoming response of the Government on various other amendments.
	As far as I can see, this amendment is not affected in any way by the amendments that we carried earlier. Consequently, I hope that we shall get a response from the Minister in reply. Amendment No. 103 is to page 318, line 18 and would leave out paragraphs 1 to 5. More clearly in terms of intention, Amendment No. 105 would insert into the end of line 28 on page 318:
	"The amendments of Child Support Act 1991 . . . shall not come into effect until all existing cases have been transferred from the old scheme as originally enacted, to the new scheme".
	The Minister and I have debated the Child Support Agency for a long time—at least it seems like a very long time. I have always accepted that the introduction of that Act by the previous government was difficult to implement. When the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Act 2000 was debated in this House, the Minister and I both agreed that the change from the rather complicated scheme that we had before to a simpler flat-rate scheme should be welcomed. We co-operated in getting those matters through the House.
	However, since we did that in 2000, the situation has been one of almost unmitigated disaster. The new formula was due to be introduced for all new cases from April 2002. However, in March 2002, Alistair Darling, then the Secretary of State, announced in a Statement that the changes were to be delayed. He pointed to problems of the development of the required computer system. On 27 January 2003, Mr Andrew Smith finally announced that a new system was coming into effect, in March 2003. That system finally went live for all new cases—I stress, for all new cases only—in April 2003. The situation has continued until the present time. From a statement made by Mr Doug Smith in July 2003, it seemed clear that it was not likely to come into effect until the spring of next year.
	The system is still working very badly. The problem is not with the computer system alone but with staff relationships and the ability of the staff to operate the system. As of September 2003—the last date for which I have managed to find figures—there were some 30,000 cases operating on the new formula and 882,000—nearly 883,000—operating on the original formula.
	I know only too well from my constituents' experience in another place how concerned and emotional those who have to deal with the Child Support Agency become. It is quite extraordinary that we should have seen delays of the kind with which we are faced at present, with regard to the ability of both the computer and the staff to cope.
	I am not suggesting that the inclusion in this arrangement of same-sex couples is going to result in an enormous number of cases. None the less, the situation has not only been bad in the respects that I have mentioned but a huge amount of compensation—something like £12 million—has been paid out as a result of fraud. The whole system, in terms of computers and staff, is obviously under enormous strain. A huge number of those affected by the Child Support Agency have been waiting for a very long time for the matter to be sorted out.
	I am not suggesting that an enormous number of people will be involved as a result of this Bill or that the Bill will greatly affect the problem—except that the staff will have to deal with a quite different set of problems. The problems likely to be involved with child support cases with same-sex couples looking after the child are likely to be ones with which the staff, as of now, are totally unfamiliar. More particularly, those who have been waiting so long for the system to be sorted out, in many cases in very emotional circumstances, will not be at all happy—I was going to say "amused", but that is an understatement—at the fact that, instead of giving priority to sorting out the problems from which we have suffered for so long and to which the Government have clearly not managed to find a solution, the Government are putting more load on the system in terms of the type of case and numbers. Those people will not be at all pleased.
	The priority should be to sort out the system first and then, when we have done that, to turn our attention to cases that may be affected. After all, this Bill will not be enacted or implemented for a considerable time, so that matter should be sorted out before we extend the provisions of the Child Support Act 1991 to those who will be affected by this Bill.
	As I said at the beginning of my speech, only those who were originally intended to be affected by the Bill are involved in this matter. The amendments that we carried earlier will not affect the situation that I have described. Therefore I hope that the Minister, if she replies, can accept Amendment No. 105, which seeks to ensure that these matters are introduced on a sensible basis, when the Government have sorted out the horrendous problems with the Child Support Agency. I beg to move.

Lord Brougham and Vaux: My Lords, I advise the House that if this amendment is agreed to I cannot call Amendments Nos. 104 to 106 inclusive.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I do not wish to show any discourtesy to the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, who I have always found to be extraordinarily courteous, helpful and informed on all social security debates that we have engaged in over many years. However, I do not think that this is the right time to go into a general debate about the performance of the Child Support Agency or the current figures. I entirely accept and deeply regret the problems posed by the inadequacy of the computer system, which is not sufficiently robust, in ministerial eyes, to allow us to bring the existing cases, as opposed to new cases, on to the system. We do not disagree about this. As soon as we can, we will do so. However, I do not think that today is an appropriate time to raise this; maybe an Unstarred Question at some time might be appropriate.
	My difficulty is engaging with the noble Lord's amendment because it excludes from child support liability same-sex couples in the way that opposite-sex couples would now be liable. The problem is that what counts as a couple for this purpose has been torpedoed by the debate earlier today. We now no longer have a working concept of couple. I must say that I would oppose the amendment anyway, for obvious reasons involving the Child Support Agency. However, I cannot engage in a debate on any aspect of social security that has at its core the concept of a couple because I do not now know whether a couple is, as I understood it, people living together as husband and wife, so to speak, in conventional social security legislation or whether it could be a civil partnership of two brothers or a brother and sister. Given that, I am stuck.
	I absolute do not intend any discourtesy to the noble Lord. I could go into a general discussion on the Child Support Agency but I shall not do so at this late hour. I am happy to do so on some other occasion. We will oppose the amendment. There is no point in taking it further, given that the concept of a couple has now been blown out of the water by the debate earlier today.

Lord Higgins: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, I do not understand the point that she is making. As far as the original Bill was concerned, quite clearly the amendment was appropriate. Even if it remains in its amended form, it will still be the case—perhaps even more strongly the case—that the Child Support Agency should not be required to take on the additional burden. If the amendments go through as agreed by your Lordships' House that is even more true. It should not be required to take this on until it has sorted out the other problems. Those who have suffered such long delays feel that they will suffer even longer delays because of the strain put on the CSA. That is not satisfactory. So I do not understand why the noble Baroness was proposing to reject the amendment anyway. Perhaps she can enlighten us in that respect.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I am sorry that I do not think I can helpfully add to the answer I have already given.

Lord Higgins: My Lords, I do not understand why that is so. The noble Baroness could perfectly well say that in any case the Government are not prepared to accept the amendment. But I have heard no reason why that is so.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, this is Report stage and so I do not want to continue this debate. I made it clear that the Government would have been unhappy to accept the amendment even as the Bill stood. Given the complexity of what we now understand by a couple, and therefore responsibility, within social security law, the Government will oppose the amendment if the noble Lord seeks to push it to a Division. But I do not want to continue to elaborate on the points about the concept of a couple and so on, which is at the core of my dilemma in all social security legislation and in all the amendments that we now face.

Lord Higgins: My Lords, we are, as the noble Baroness says, on Report. I will be out of order if I go on jumping up and down any more. I may need to return to this at Third Reading. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 104 to 107 not moved.]

Lord Higgins: had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 108:
	Page 322, line 22, leave out sub-paragraphs (1) to (4).

Lord Higgins: My Lords, this amendment is covered by subsequent amendments on the Marshalled List which have overtaken it. I think that the amendments that replace it are on the supplementary list. So we will come to those in due course.

[Amendment No. 108 not moved.]
	[Amendments Nos. 109 to 125 not moved.]
	Clause 245 [Power to amend enactments relating to pensions]:
	[Amendments Nos. 126 to 129 not moved.]
	Schedule 24 [Amendment of certain enactments relating to pensions]:

Lord Higgins: had given his intention to move Amendment No. 129A:
	Page 343, line 12, leave out paragraph 1.

Lord Higgins: My Lords, the four amendments in this group are the ones to which I referred a moment ago. They cover a series of changes in pension arrangements. It seemed helpful to divide them up rather than to take them en bloc, which would have been the effect of Amendment No. 108 that I did not move.
	I am considering very carefully, in the light of the various statements made by the Government, whether it would be fruitful to raise the matter at this stage. I suspect that we will merely get the same stonewalling answer. The noble Baroness has indicated that that is so. So it seems pointless, I regret to say, to go on with this rather strange procedure—which I cannot recall in my entire parliamentary life of some 40 years of experience.
	No doubt it will be appropriate to reconsider these points, to see to what extent it is valid for the Government to say they cannot reply. In some of the cases in which they have said that previously, I suspect that it is not the case. So I may well wish to return to the amendments on Third Reading.

[Amendment No. 129A not moved.]
	[Amendments Nos. 129B to 131 not moved.]
	Clause 250 [Community obligations and civil partners]:
	[Amendments Nos. 132 and 133 not moved.]
	Clause 251 [Minor and consequential amendments, repeals and revocations]:
	[Amendment No. 134 not moved.]
	Schedule 26 [Minor and consequential amendments: general]:
	[Amendments Nos. 135 to 169 not moved.]
	Schedule 27 [Consequential amendments: Scotland]:
	[Amendment No. 170 not moved.]

The Duke of Montrose: moved Amendment No. 171:
	Page 373, line 2, at end insert—
	"In section 16(4) (petitions for recall of sequestration), for "section 41(1)(b)" substitute "sections 41(1)(b) and 41A(1)(b)"."

The Duke of Montrose: My Lords, with the leave of the House, in moving Amendment No. 171 I should like to speak also to my other amendments in this group, Amendments Nos. 173, 175 and 178, although we have in some ways gone past that group.
	Once again I must express great disappointment that the Government do not feel able to move their amendments. I would like to appreciate the effort that the Government and the Civil Service in Scotland have obviously put in to produce full and totally adequate amendments to this part of the Bill. However, I shall speak to my amendments.
	Amendment No. 171 inserts a reference to a new Section 41A(1)(b) into Section 16(4) of the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985. The reason for this is that Paragraph 32 of Schedule 27 to the Bill inserts a new Section 41A into the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985. As a result, Section 16(4) of the 1985 Act requires to be amended to refer to the new Section 41A(1)(b).
	Amendment No. 173 inserts into Section 34(7) of the 1985 Act a reference to the provisions of Clause 127 of the Bill. The reason why this is required is that Section 34(7) of the 1985 Act states that that section operates,
	"without prejudice to the operation of section 2 of the Married Women's Policies of Assurance Act (Scotland) 1880 (policy of assurance may be effected in trust for spouse, future spouse and children)".
	As the provisions contained in Clause 128 of the Bill extend Section 2 of the 1880 Act to cover civil partners, this amendment is intended to insert a reference to those provisions into the 1985 Act.
	Amendment No. 176 inserts a reference to civil partners in Section 51(3) of the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985. Section 51(3)(b) of the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985 makes, inter alia, a loan by a debtor's spouse a postponed debt in terms of that Act. This amendment aims to widen that provision to cover also civil partners.
	Amendment No. 178 would insert a reference to former civil partners into Schedule 1, paragraph 2(1)(a) of the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985. Paragraph 2(1)(a) of Schedule 1 to the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985 sets out rules in relation to claims for aliment and periodical allowance on divorce. This amendment would extend these provisions to cover former civil partners following dissolution of that partnership. I beg to move.

Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, as this is the last group of amendments, I do not want to add to what my noble friend the Duke of Montrose has just said, but to say that, like my noble friend Lord Higgins, in the 30 years that I have been in Parliament I have never experienced an afternoon like the one we have had today. The Government's response to the defeat, which, admittedly, they clearly did not expect, was highly unsatisfactory. I refer to their refusal even to explain what their amendments meant, even when there was a great deal of sympathy both for the Bill generally—as was known from the earlier stages of the Bill—and for the particular amendment under debate. The fact that they refused even to explain what they were doing on some but not all of the amendments was highly unsatisfactory.
	There has been no attempt to filibuster. The noble Lord, Lord Lester, accused us of that a little earlier but I think I am right in saying that he made about the longest speech of anyone in the course of the whole discussion. That is not unusual, but he did so today.
	I remind the House that the amendment which was carried earlier was carried entirely on a free vote, at any rate so far as my party was concerned. So far as I know, that applied to other parties. I believe I am right in saying that noble Lords of different parties went through different Lobbies. I have not studied the Division List in detail as yet but there were noble Lords from different parties in different Lobbies.

Lord Alli: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, does he not accept that following what happened this morning with the relevant amendment, on which the House rightly voted as it saw fit, for those of us who sat through Grand Committee the concept of the Civil Partnership Bill had been fundamentally changed? Therefore, all the amendments that we were discussing, and had discussed in Grand Committee, gained wider ramifications that made every single one of them incompatible with the broader scope of the Bill. Does the noble Lord accept that the Government have allowed proceedings to move forward—we have had discussions on a whole range of issues—but that the amendments that the noble Lord was seeking to discuss seem to be inappropriate given the change in circumstances and scope of the Bill?

Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, I am not sure whether the noble Lord was intervening in my speech or making his own. However, from the way he expressed himself, I believe that he was intervening in my speech.

Lord Alli: My Lords, for clarity, I was intervening in the noble Lord's speech; I was not making my own.

Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for making that clear. I understand the point that the noble Lord made from his own point of view, but I certainly do not think that it applies to anything like all the amendments that we have discussed this afternoon. In any case, I see no reason why the Government could not have explained what various amendments would have meant had the Bill not been amended. That would have been helpful to the House and no doubt to the discussion of the Bill, which will proceed both in this place and in another place.

The Lord Bishop of Winchester: My Lords, in the light of the previous contribution, I am making my own speech. I offer it as we helpfully become reflective on this extraordinary afternoon—or so I thought at the start of the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Cope.
	When the noble Lord, Lord Lester, brought forward his own Civil Partnerships Bill in January two and a half years ago, I made the point that some of us who were not at all happy with it might have been markedly happier had it looked at a much smaller number of people, been a much smaller Bill, and looked at a number of the clearest points where there were manifest injustices and sources of real distress and anxiety. That advice has not been followed by the process that has brought us to this point.
	One plank of what the Government and others have said is that responsibility for the position in which we find ourselves lies with those who were in the majority this afternoon. However, a significant element of responsibility seems to lie on those responsible for the character of the Bill. The Bill has become enormous and spread because of the intention—perhaps as a result of a particular element of human rights legislation—to replicate painstakingly everything there might be concerning marriage. The position in which the Government have found themselves largely stems from that astonishing exhaustiveness of the Bill.
	Might there not be a question of remembering the advice that some of us gave two and a half years ago—that the Government might more easily get a much more straightforward Bill through, one that addresses some of the most critically and obviously distressing, disadvantaging and, frankly, wrong elements of the present system? If it is the responsibility of the majority this afternoon, which I question, it is not simply our responsibility, because the whole character of the Bill—its scale, shape and exhaustive replication—has got us where we are.

Lord Roper: My Lords, I am not speaking to respond to the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Cope, about the contribution of my noble friend Lord Lester to Amendment No. 87. However, given that the whole debate on that group took only 15 minutes, it cannot be said that he was speaking at excessive length.
	The situation is very unusual. In my experience in both Houses of this Parliament, I have never known such a radical change to a piece of legislation; it may be an unprecedented change. It would probably have misled the House had the Government attempted to use material prepared to discuss amendments that it was assumed would be considered in a different context. It is right that that material was not put on record. The Government have behaved in the correct manner in this extraordinarily unusual situation. However, I hope that we will have an opportunity at a later stage—when amendments come back from the Commons—to give amendments the consideration that we have not been able to give them this afternoon.

The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford: My Lords, I want to add a word or two to the remarks of my friend, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Winchester. Whatever mess we have got ourselves into today, we as a House need to bear two things in mind. First, the Government started this legislation here. It is entirely appropriate that such legislation be started in this House. Therefore, we have to watch how we conduct ourselves, and not hand across to the other place legislation that is clearly in a principled mess. If we do not watch that, the Government might be tempted not to take such a route, which has implications for the practice of this House.
	My second point is that we have to have legislation that is rooted in principle. All those in positions of political responsibility need to consider that, whatever their point of view. There is a variety of points of view on these Benches as well as elsewhere in the House. Given the damage that has been done today there has to be coherence in terms of principle. We have lost that today. I hope that those that are here every day through negotiation will help us to recover the situation.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, like others I deeply regret the situation in which we find ourselves. It was not created by any act of Government; it was a consequence of a vote that was taken earlier today that the Government have to respect and act upon as though it happened. With the best will in the world, what the noble Lord, Lord Cope, seems to suggest is that the Government should respond to amendments as if that vote had not taken place, as though the will of the House had not been declared and as though the Government had not been overturned in a straight debate about the core concept of the Bill, which is, "What is a couple?". That concept of partners living as though they were husband and wife has now been changed radically and fundamentally out of all recognition, as the noble Lord, Lord Roper, said.
	As my noble friend Lord Alli said clearly, in consequence, most of the government amendments and the Government's response to the amendments moved were based on one concept of the Bill, which has now been completely, dramatically and fundamentally changed. If the precepts of the noble Lord, Lord Cope, had been followed we could have been described as being arrogant, as disregarding the view of the House, of ignoring it, of being confident that the Commons would overturn the vote and of pretending that it had never taken place.
	We could not do that. We were in an extremely difficult position. I entirely respect some of the amendments and positions taken by noble Lords opposite—as well as noble Lords on the Bishops' Bench. The Government have tried to act in a clean, straightforward and transparent manner. I hope that we will have an adequate opportunity at a later stage to do what this House does best, which is to scrutinise the Bill carefully. Maybe we will make time to do that at some point in the proceedings, but the situation was created by the vote today. It has fundamentally changed the Bill. We could not act as though that vote had not taken place and therefore we took the most honourable way forward, which was to recognise that fact, expedite the proceedings and allow us, perhaps, at a later stage to have further scrutiny of the Bill.

The Duke of Montrose: My Lords, before the Minister sits down can I ask her, as a matter of curiosity, whether one of the difficulties that the Government are having with the Bill is that the original Bill was "Sewel-ed" by the Scottish Parliament? Does the fact that we have a different Bill put us in difficulty with the Scottish Parliament? Are we not in a parallel situation to that regarding Northern Ireland, where we wish the devolved governments to have a say, but that we cannot go ahead until they have that say?

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, we will have to come back to the noble Duke on that. I am not in a position to get my head around all the of implications of the decision that was made by your Lordships earlier.

The Duke of Montrose: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 172 to 179 not moved.]
	[Amendment No. 180 not moved.]
	Schedule 28 [Repeals and revocations]:
	[Amendments Nos. 181 to 187 not moved.]
	Clause 252 [Extent]:
	[Amendments Nos. 188 to 193 not moved.]
	Clause 253 [Commencement]:
	[Amendments Nos. 194 to 201 not moved.]

Higher Education Bill

Bill returned from the Commons with certain Lords amendments disagreed to with reasons for such disagreement; with a Lords amendment disagreed to with amendments proposed in lieu thereof; with further Lords amendments agreed to with amendments; and with the remaining Lords amendments agreed to; the Commons amendments and reasons were ordered to be printed.

Constitutional Reform Bill [HL]

Bill reported from the Select Committee with amendments and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House; it was ordered that the Bill be printed as amended.
	House adjourned at twenty-nine minutes past six o'clock.